Paper Abortions

[Puppycow]

Actually the whole idea of paper abortions is redundant.

Vasectamies are the best option to avoid pregnancies, and these days vasectamies can be reversed with a very high success rate. They are actually slightly more comparable to an actual abortion that a woman may feel compelled to undergo once she is served a "paper abortion notice."

They could have vasectomy clinics like they have abortion clinics.

Reversable vasectomies are the most equitable option.

I was not aware that vasectomies are reversible, but if they are, and it isn't prohibitively expensive to do so, that could be a good solution, but more people would need to be made aware of it.

According to Planned Parenthood:

How much does a vasectomy cost?

Getting a vasectomy can cost anywhere between $0 and $1,000, including follow-up visits.

The cost of a vasectomy varies and depends on where you get it, what kind you get, and whether or not you have health insurance that will cover some or all of the cost. Vasectomies may be totally free (or low cost) with some health insurance plans, Medicaid, and other government programs.

Even if your vasectomy costs more than other methods up front, it usually ends up saving you money in the long run, because it lasts forever. Vasectomies are about 6 times cheaper than female sterilization.

However, the cost of a vasectomy reversal appears to be considerably higher than the cost of a vasectomy, starting at close to $5,000 and averaging over $10,000, and what's more, it doesn't always work (the longer it's been, the less likely it is result in recovered fertility).

https://www.healthline.com/health/vasectomy-reversal#candidates

Vasectomies may be reversible up to 20 years or longer after the initial procedure. But the longer you wait to reverse a vasectomy, the less likely that you’ll be able to have a child after the procedure.

Sperm usually start appearing in your semen again a few months after a vasectomy reversal. This increases your chances of getting your partner pregnant. You may need to wait a year or longer before sperm appear again. This may be necessary if your doctor finds any blockage in your vas deferens or epididymis.

Your chances of getting your partner pregnant after reversing a vasectomy can range from 30 to 70 percent. Your chances of a successful reversal may be lower if it’s been over 10 years since your vasectomy.

So in conclusion, while there is some merit to what you are proposing, it does not appear to be quite so easy to reverse the procedure as you suggest. The success rate seems to be only about 30 to 70 percent, if actually impregnating a woman is the measure of success. (And I'm pretty sure you only get it reversed if that is your actual goal. I don't see any reason to have it reversed unless you want to have a kid.)

 

[Darat]

One question relevant to the topic is simply the pragmatic one: would paper abortions lead to better or worse outcomes for all concerned?

3point14 has made the point that if men who were not interested in or incapable of the responsibilities of fatherhood could get a "paper abortion", this might discourage their partners from carrying the pregnancy to term. That seems like a good outcome, better than struggling single mothers and absent fathers.

On the other hand, many of those women will nevertheless carry those children to term. In that case the situation is worse because now the woman is raising the child without even the child support payments of the father. I think we all agree that at this point it's a worse outcome?

The question seems to be, at the population level which outcome will tend to occur, and are children, in general and on average, better or worse off? I don't know the answer but it seems more relevant to me than much of the focus of the discussion so far.

To my view the only person we need to consider is the child. The adults took the risk so whilst they shouldn't be punished they should be held responsible for the child until the child reaches adulthood or if the child is given up and adopted.

And as can be seen in the UK the legally enforceable child support payments are certainly not ruinous ( I suppose if you have a half dozen kids with different partners it could be very expensive).

 

[Roboramma]

To my view the only person we need to consider is the child. The adults took the risk so whilst they shouldn't be punished they should be held responsible for the child until the child reaches adulthood or if the child is given up and adopted.

And as can be seen in the UK the legally enforceable child support payments are certainly not ruinous ( I suppose if you have a half dozen kids with different partners it could be very expensive).

I'm trying to suggest a pragmatic holistic view of the effects on society as a whole, which includes how expecting mothers and fathers would be affected (in the long term).

I don't know that this perspective is the only useful one, but I do think it could offer some insights.

 

[casebro]

....
I'm over this thread. Idiocracy is correct. Unintentional breeding is something the foolish do, ...

Easy for a gay guy to say. Not so easy for the heterosexual to do.

Do we care about the opinion of a gay guy who's use of condoms is to prevent his own illness, in an abortion thread?

Abortion is a polarizing issue. One guy I know had a young teen daughter. Another guy's wife had a tubal pregnancy. Guess which opposite sides they are on? Does TM's side count? Any more than a Catholic preist's?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Easy for a gay guy to say. Not so easy for the heterosexual to do.

Do we care about the opinion of a gay guy who's use of condoms is to prevent his own illness, in an abortion thread?

Abortion is a polarizing issue. One guy I know had a young teen daughter. Another guy's wife had a tubal pregnancy. Guess which opposite sides they are on? Does TM's side count? Any more than a Catholic preist's?

By that logic you should only listen to meth addicts' opinions on whether it's a good idea to use meth.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Get a room, you two.

Anyway it sounds like the States could learn a lot from the way the UK does it.

We do seem to have a lot of stuff where relatively poor people end up in extremely discouraging debt and/or prison for no astonishingly good reason.

It's the nature of the US court system for debt collection.

By the letter of the law, you don't go to jail if you honestly can't meet your child support payments. The problem is that one needs a lawyer to effectively argue why failure to pay is not contempt of a court order and a jail able offense, but lawyers aren't cheap and these people are, by definition, have little money.

SO people get found in contempt, either for not properly arguing (with a lawyer) why they can't meet their payments, or by not showing up to court, and they get locked up. Debtor's prison with extra steps.

 

[Hungry81]

A vasectomy doesn't address the problem of what to do once a woman has already become pregnant, unless you've got a time machine as well.

Obviously the intention is to get the vasectomy BEFORE copulating.

 

[Hungry81]

I was not aware that vasectomies are reversible, but if they are, and it isn't prohibitively expensive to do so, that could be a good solution, but more people would need to be made aware of it.



According to Planned Parenthood:







However, the cost of a vasectomy reversal appears to be considerably higher than the cost of a vasectomy, starting at close to $5,000 and averaging over $10,000, and what's more, it doesn't always work (the longer it's been, the less likely it is result in recovered fertility).



https://www.healthline.com/health/vasectomy-reversal#candidates







So in conclusion, while there is some merit to what you are proposing, it does not appear to be quite so easy to reverse the procedure as you suggest. The success rate seems to be only about 30 to 70 percent, if actually impregnating a woman is the measure of success. (And I'm pretty sure you only get it reversed if that is your actual goal. I don't see any reason to have it reversed unless you want to have a kid.)

Other solutions include IVF. You could store sperm before hand or a doctor could remove the sperm via needle when the parties want to procreate.

And then there is the home frozen sperm (heres one I prepared earlier) and turkey baster method for those on a budget.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjALegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1uXKKWTtKYB13xFjXUJN-9

Then some day they can use the method that enables two lesbians to use their own genetic material (not sperm) to have their own biological children.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw24ESO0Osz0QWGwrj8FdFEc

 

[Darat]

Out of curiosity what are the numbers of fathers being forced to pay for child support for a child they created but wanted to abort as a fetus?

Shotgun weddings have always happened, certainly in times past a number of women had early births... But we've now had unrestricted access to all contraceptives for 40 plus years so we've had entire generations of folks that could significantly reduce their risk of being unintended parents.

 

[Darat]

We will prosecute people who intentionally do not inform their partner of a STD,. If a man tells the woman he has had a vasectomy so they need no other contraception and he was lying and a child is the result, should he be able to have a "paper abortion" and also be prosecuted for the lack of informed consent?

 

[casebro]

By that logic you should only listen to meth addicts' opinions on whether it's a good idea to use meth.

If I want to learn about the usefulness of meth, I WILL ask one.

If I want to learn about how easy it is prevent pregnancies, it's not the gay guy I'll ask. I might as well ask a a Catholic priest. You both use the same method- Your birth control method is to basically abstain- from sex with fertile women. Good plan, it does work. You use condoms for another good reason. Some other problem that can last the rest of your life. Which is not the subject of this thread.

 

[casebro]

Out of curiosity what are the numbers of fathers being forced to pay for child support for a child they created but wanted to abort as a fetus?

Shotgun weddings have always happened, certainly in times past a number of women had early births... But we've now had unrestricted access to all contraceptives for 40 plus years so we've had entire generations of folks that could significantly reduce their risk of being unintended parents.

I do know a guy who dropped his girlfriend off at the clinic. 9 months later she handed him a bundle of joy and the news that she hadn't gone in. I guess the rate would be (how many fathers I know as well as him)/ one ?

He paid support for some time. She turned druggie, he got sole custody. Raised him just fine. But I don't know who wanted the abortion to begin with, him or her? Or both, they just changed their minds at different times.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If I want to learn about the usefulness of meth, I WILL ask one.

If I want to learn about how easy it is prevent pregnancies, it's not the gay guy I'll ask. I might as well ask a a Catholic priest. You both use the same method- Your birth control method is to basically abstain- from sex with fertile women. Good plan, it does work. You use condoms for another good reason. Some other problem that can last the rest of your life. Which is not the subject of this thread.

The birth control methods I've suggested so far have been the most exhaustive list yet introduced into this discussion:

You really don't get me at all. Yes, having sex is gambling. The possible outcomes are: nothing, an STD, a pregnancy, or both an STD and a pregnancy. There exist methods of reducing changing the odds: condoms, the pill, IUDs, vasectomy, using a different orifice. Those methods possess differing rates of probable success. They are not guaranteed perfect success because nothing in life is guaranteed perfect success. Whether employing any/some/none of these methods to mitigate the risk is up to the two individuals involved. Whether the resulting odds of an unfavorable outcome make the activity worth doing is, again, up to the two individuals. Whether they realize it or not it will always be a gamble. Every action possible is a gamble, the pursuit of one possible outcome gambled against the probability of other outcomes. That has nothing to do with fairness, or deserving, or punishment. It's an inexorable reality of existence. Whining about that won't help.

Despite the repeated mischaracterization of my posts as pushing "abstinence only" that is clearly not the case.

And now you declare everything I said invalid because I'm gay? I think everyone is capable of scrolling up to see what I said and determine for themselves whether my comments are worth consideration or not, regardless of my sexuality.

 

[Roboramma]

Obviously the intention is to get the vasectomy BEFORE copulating.

Right, but it doesn't solve the problem of people who didn't get a vasectomy. We still end up with unwanted pregnancies and some number of children whose fathers don't want to contribute to their upbringing. That problem can be mitigated somewhat by vasectomies, but it hasn't been solved and so we still have to deal with it.

So, how do we deal with it? Mandatory vasectomies? Mandatory child support payments as we have now? Some other solution of set of solutions?

 

[Roboramma]

We will prosecute people who intentionally do not inform their partner of a STD,. If a man tells the woman he has had a vasectomy so they need no other contraception and he was lying and a child is the result, should he be able to have a "paper abortion" and also be prosecuted for the lack of informed consent?

I don't think so.

Should a woman be prosecuted if she claims to be on the birth control pill but isn't? (I think that answer here is also no.)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't think so.

Should a woman be prosecuted if she claims to be on the birth control pill but isn't? (I think that answer here is also no.)

I think deliberately misleading people about contraceptives or virility should be some form of sex crime if it could be shown that such claims played a role in sexual consent being granted.

"Stealthing", where a man removes a condom mid-sex without the other partner's knowledge, is now considered a crime in some places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal#:~:text=Existing%20laws%20in%20the%20United,known%20legal%20cases%20about%20it.&text=Brodsky%20describes%20stealthing%20as%20legally,case%20is%20underway%20regarding%20stealthing.

I don't see why other such deceptions in relation to sexual consent couldn't also be criminal. It certainly strikes me as immoral.

As with many things related to consent to sexual activity, proving state-of-mind after the fact is often very difficult.

 

[theprestige]

I think deliberately misleading people about contraceptives or virility should be some form of sex crime if it could be shown that such claims played a role in sexual consent being granted.

"Stealthing", where a man removes a condom mid-sex without the other partner's knowledge, is now considered a crime in some places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal#:~:text=Existing%20laws%20in%20the%20United,known%20legal%20cases%20about%20it.&text=Brodsky%20describes%20stealthing%20as%20legally,case%20is%20underway%20regarding%20stealthing.

I don't see why other such deceptions in relation to sexual consent couldn't also be criminal. It certainly strikes me as immoral.

As with many things related to consent to sexual activity, proving state-of-mind after the fact is often very difficult.

Is there a slippery slope here, though?

Lying about birth control seems like a pretty clear cut case of sexual abuse.

But what about misrepresenting your income, or lying about your career? If you wear designer clothes and drive a fancy car to attract sex partners, but you're really just a pauper living beyond your means, should that be a criminal offense?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Is there a slippery slope here, though?

Lying about birth control seems like a pretty clear cut case of sexual abuse.

But what about misrepresenting your income, or lying about your career? If you wear designer clothes and drive a fancy car to attract sex partners, but you're really just a pauper living beyond your means, should that be a criminal offense?

I think it's pretty easy to distinguish between fraudulent representations that are immediately related to the inherent risks sex, such as STD status or contraceptives, and other forms of more abstract fraud that have more to do with sex appeal or attraction. I think a hard stop could be put on the slippery slope to prosecute guys who lie about vasectomies and not guys who drive rented lambos and live in their mama's basement.

It's the difference between attraction factors and risk assessment of sexual activity. When it comes to making informed consent about sex, punishing fraud about contraceptives seems appropriate to me and distinct from other types of lying.

That being said, outright fraudulent representations in order to trick someone into having sex seems pretty unethical and something that could be worthy of criminal status to me. Again, proving this to the standards of criminal conviction may be difficult, which is often the case with sexual crimes. At least we live in the text message age, so often there's more a written record of ordinary communications than their might have been in the past.

 

[Cavemonster]

I don't think so.

Should a woman be prosecuted if she claims to be on the birth control pill but isn't? (I think that answer here is also no.)

I'm curious, other than the comparison, why do you think this particular sort of lie should not be prosecutable?

For the record, I can see an argument that both should be crimes. But between the two, lying to a woman, creating a situation where she's at risk of becoming pregnant with all the associated health risks and consequences, where she is forced to either abort, carry a child to term and then raise it or give it up for adoption. All of those consequences are huge.

And the risk of a woman getting pregnant if she has lied about her birth control is large as well. But biology isn't symmetrical, it's not an equivalent risk.

It seems like intentionally misrepresenting a serious risk is the stuff of legal issues in a lot of other domains. I'm not sure why sex should be different. If you intentionally misrepresent a serious risk to another person for your personal benefit and they get injured, we have legal frameworks for that.

Hell, Trump was sued successfully for misrepresenting how valuable a degree from his BS Trump University was.