Protect A Woman's Right to Choose

[equationgirl]

I suppose you could knock off 1/6th of 193,000 because of natural miscarriage, but I don't think that's mathematically correct, as you don't know WHY these abortions were being carried out in the first place, e.g. unsurvivable birth defects.

 

[equationgirl]

Yeah, you'd probably get about 50,000 extra babies and a whole lot of women bleeding to death after illegal abortions and many afraid to go to a doctor for fear of arrest. So that's better.

Don't forget the rise in infertility through botched abortions, and the rise in infections and septacaemia!

 

[mentalchik]

This is almost a pointless argument neither side is going to change it's mind or agree.........

 

[ymu]

That's an obvious downside, but I see that situation as being less bad than the widespread legal abortion that occurs at present.

For the sake of clarity, that doesn't mean that I think that illegal abortions are a good thing.

Surely there is a much better solution available which will eliminate both unwanted pregnancy and abortion (legal or illegal)? We simply require all boys to have their sperm frozen and then have a vasectomy shortly after their first productive ejaculation.

This procedure could be done in a few hours with less need for analgesia than many women use during childbirth and at virtually zero risk of serious complications. The financial cost of the procedure is less than that of childbirth, and the cost of storing sperm would be trivial compared to that of bringing up hundreds of thousands of unwanted children. Both men and women would be able to choose exactly when and with whom to have children.

Sorted.

 

[cesare]

Surely there is a much better solution available which will eliminate both unwanted pregnancy and abortion (legal or illegal)? We simply require all boys to have their sperm frozen and then have a vasectomy shortly after their first productive ejaculation.

This procedure could be done in a few hours with less need for analgesia than many women use during childbirth and at virtually zero risk of serious complications. The financial cost of the procedure is less than that of childbirth, and the cost of storing sperm would be trivial compared to that of bringing up hundreds of thousands of unwanted children. Both men and women would be able to choose exactly when and with whom to have children.

Sorted.

 

[cesare]

Actually ymu, I'd never really considered that before. It's quite inspired as a win-win solution.

Just think, all that money saved from no more need for ongoing contraception that might not be 100% effective. No more unwanted pregnancies. No risk of creating a market for illegal abortionists. No more unwanted children being put up for adoption. Control the world's population levels.

Relatively pain-free. A simple pre-emptive snip instead of 9 months of carrying an unwanted embryo/foetus (with scans, and medical monitoring etc) followed by labour sometimes involving CS. Much more cost effective. AND it would stop all those single women that have a kid just to get council accommodation and live on benefits.

I can't see any down-side tbh. Maybe women should campaign for this instead?

 

[cesare]

No need for abortion clinics

 

[cesare]

'A simple snip for a Better Britain'

 

[the button]

'A simple snip for a Better Britain'

Of course, you'd need to install snip facilities at every port of entry into the UK. A single male asylum seeker can produce enough unwanted pregnancies to populate a town the size of Stoke-on-Trent every three weeks. I read it in the papers.

 

[the button]

Thinking about it, this fits in exactly with Gordon Brown's plans to introduce a sense of civic responsibility into Britain's youth.

It could become a rite of passage for every adolescent boy in Britain. Crack one off for Blighty, then into the freezer, and *snip*.

 

[cesare]

Instead of hanging about on street corners terrorising old ladies, they could be contributing to the sperm banks. Far cheaper than 'training schemes'.

 

[_angel_]

Yes, it is. I'm against it.



Absolutely. An unborn child has a right to live, however they may have been conceived.

The MA pill isn't necessarily an abortion, it can also act like the normal pill to stop an egg being released.

Even if it does stop a fertilised egg developing further- very very early on in it's development (ie hours, not days , weeks or months) I can't see how this can be put on the same par as an abortion of a potentially viable foetus several months later.

 

[frogwoman]

'A simple snip for a Better Britain'

heh

 

[London_Calling]

Surely there is a much better solution available which will eliminate both unwanted pregnancy and abortion (legal or illegal)? We simply require all boys to have their sperm frozen and then have a vasectomy shortly after their first productive ejaculation.

This procedure could be done in a few hours with less need for analgesia than many women use during childbirth and at virtually zero risk of serious complications. The financial cost of the procedure is less than that of childbirth, and the cost of storing sperm would be trivial compared to that of bringing up hundreds of thousands of unwanted children. Both men and women would be able to choose exactly when and with whom to have children.

Sorted.

It might also be an idea to harvest female eggs at the same time, sterilise the girls and then everything can be done much more easily in a test tube.

 

[spring-peeper]

It might also be an idea to harvest female eggs at the same time, sterilise the girls and then everything can be done much more easily in a test tube.

But then you would be doing away with a woman's right to choose!!!!

 

[ymu]

It might also be an idea to harvest female eggs at the same time, sterilise the girls and then everything can be done much more easily in a test tube.

When we can bring foetuses to term in vitro, absolutely.

Until then, to do so would require women to undergo several entirely unnecessary operations (one plus one per child) at considerable risk to their lives and a far greater expense than necessary, so it's a no-go at the moment I'm afraid.

I realise it's not perfect until true equality is possible, but surely it will save vastly more human lives compared to banning abortion.

 

[spanglechick]

Surely there is a much better solution available which will eliminate both unwanted pregnancy and abortion (legal or illegal)? We simply require all boys to have their sperm frozen and then have a vasectomy shortly after their first productive ejaculation.

This procedure could be done in a few hours with less need for analgesia than many women use during childbirth and at virtually zero risk of serious complications. The financial cost of the procedure is less than that of childbirth, and the cost of storing sperm would be trivial compared to that of bringing up hundreds of thousands of unwanted children. Both men and women would be able to choose exactly when and with whom to have children.

Sorted.

applauds.

btw - if female sterilisation were similarly medically simple, and didn't have a serious and expensive knock on complicatio for the time when a couple did decide to have children, i would be equally supportive of that (especially if it meant no periods!). this isn't about women winning. But I genuinely see no downsides.

no more babies of rapists. no more babies of incest. no more children of infidelity un knowingly being brought up by the wrong father. no more teenagers screwing up their education by getting up the duff.

every conception is planned and wanted by both parents.

 

[_angel_]

applauds.

btw - if female sterilisation were similarly medically simple, and didn't have a serious and expensive knock on complicatio for the time when a couple did decide to have children, i would be equally supportive of that (especially if it meant no periods!). this isn't about women winning. But I genuinely see no downsides.

no more babies of rapists. no more babies of incest. no more children of infidelity un knowingly being brought up by the wrong father. no more teenagers screwing up their education by getting up the duff.

every conception is planned and wanted by both parents.

Is this meant to be voluntary or compulsory.

I don't want the state deciding if or when I can have kids.

*Shudder*

 

[ymu]

Is this meant to be voluntary or compulsory.

I don't want the state deciding if or when I can have kids.

*Shudder*

They don't. A man's sperm is stored and only accessible by him. When you're both ready, he makes a withdrawal and you do the turkey-baster thing.

As I said on the other thread, once we can bring children to term in vitro we can go the whole hog and freeze eggs too so that women can be entirely protected from rogue males. But in the meantime, it would mean a major operation to remove the eggs and then (at least) one more major operation per child born. This is clearly an unacceptable risk until we have the technology to avoid it.

 

[mentalchik]

Has untethered done a runner then ?

 

[equationgirl]

ymu - an inspired solution

cesare - loving your phrases

How this already law I simply do not know...

 

[the button]

'A simple snip for a Better Britain'

I thought of that. But as an OWM, my talents are doomed to go unrecognised.

 

[cesare]

I thought of that. But as an OWM, my talents are doomed to go unrecognised.

True

But it was MY highly popular poll

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=251637

 

[the button]

But it was MY highly popular poll

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=251637

I lack the confidence of the modern woman of today.

 

[cesare]

I lack the confidence of the modern woman of today.

You're an oppressed white male, stand tall and be strong

 

[equationgirl]

I can teach you how to have balls, button