Imagine if the current law on abortion, applied to the Snip:
- Any man who wants to curtail his reproductive abilities 4EVA would have to undergo counselling first, as it is such a major decision.
- A man could only get a vasectomy if he could show to have further children would be detrimental to his health (mental or physical). If he is raped, then that could be considered, but it's not a guarantee as he could be making it up just to get a vasectomy.
- If he wants to get a vasectomy on mental health grounds, he's stuck in this weird Catch 22, where-by he has to be sufficiently unstable to convince two certifying consultants to have a child would place too much strain on his fragile state, but also sane enough to be able to make a conscious and considered choice. Sucks to be him.
- He will have to deal with thoughtless people labelling men who get the snip as selfish, irrational, not paternal and wantonly promiscuous (they will say the last in a tone that makes it clear they think it is A Bad Thing).
We have vasectomy on demand in this country, although I suspect there is a bit of a wait if you can't afford the reasonably small fee to go private. Isn't the decision to end your ability to have children forevermore even more significant than that to terminate one pregnancy that may or may not have been viable? Yet we don't require men to go through any of the hoops facing women seeking a termination.
Could it be that our society trusts men to make their own decisions about their own bodies? Now, there's a name for that kind of attitude, what is it again, hmmm, it's on the tip of my fingers...
Postscript: After I'd finished and scheduled this post I saw this by Boganette. Seems some people are at least somewhat consistent with their ridiculous need to control other people's bodies, in particular their reproductive functions.
29 comments:
Ha! Great post Julie. Yeah some Catholic fundies are currently crying over balls as we speak*. And I'm harvesting them to give to The Dark Lord - my hero. They'll love this post. I hope they turn up in force so we can all have a laugh on this fine Monday.
*They seem to think it's less a snip as the whole 'manliness' being removed. I feel like getting a tee-shirt that says "A real man would be able to knock me up".
But other than real staunch fundies most anti-choicers wouldn't see the link between male reproductive rights and female reproductive rights. Basically because if you've got a willy you can be trusted. Their brains are bigger than ours you know. And teh mens think things through whereas we get distracted by oh look another Sex and the City movie!
SARCASM.SARCASM.SARCASM.SARCASM (I have to include that note for our NZ Con readers).
The direct comparison would be to women requesting her tubes tied, not to abortion.
And I imagine the process for both are about the same.
It's precisely because abortion involves termination that the process is different.
Note that I am not condoning the abortion process as it stands, just pointing out your comparison is severely flawed.
"We want tubal ligation on demand" could be your catch cry.
Could it be that our society trusts men to make their own decisions about their own bodies?
No more than tubal ligation.
Thats a very silly and juvenile argument. And one would guess that if abortion access in this country was so hard and fraught with difficulty that 40% of abortions each year wouldn't be those whom have already had at least one abortion previously.
I find it also demeaning and disrespectful that you look at woman as these powerless vessels and victims completely and utterly unable to stop themselves falling to this mysterious disease of pregnancy for which their is protection against.
Hands off my b*%^*! Now this will be the only opportunity most of the kiwiblog-right crowd gets to say this to a woman, i expect you'll be inundated
So it's more significant to end one pregnancy than to end a person's ability to reproduce from that point onward?
Kim, do you know why women have abortions? Because they are pregnant against their will. Contraceptive failure, an irregular menstrual cycle, rape, lack of knowledge about or access to contraception in the first place, a pregnancy that is unsafe or unviable. Sometimes a woman will be unlucky enough to have one of these things happen twice, or more, in her lifetime.
I think Kim is a devotee of whale-oil's female equvalent, "drunk too much cactus juice kate". So expect more morally one-sided rants from that corner.
"I find it also demeaning and disrespectful that you look at woman as these powerless vessels and victims completely and utterly unable to stop themselves falling to this mysterious disease of pregnancy for which their is protection against."
Oh please! You've never met someone who accidentally got pregnant? Or had a pregnancy scare? *rolls eyes furiously*
And who cares if someone is having more than one abortion? What's it to you? It's not your body and it doesn't impact you so get over it.
If you don't know anyone (and have never heard of anyone) getting pregnant when they didn't want to be pregnant then you've definitely never met someone who has had an abortion (mind you judging by your tone I don't think any of your friends would admit the mortal sin of accidental pregnancy to you) so respectfully you don't know shit about how difficult it is to get an abortion in NZ. Stats don't mean shit.
:) its near on impossible to get your tubes tied before 30 years of age... I know of cases where woman with 5 kids havent been able to get it done because they are too young and might want more kids... ummm when we know we are finished we know.
Vasectomies are a lot easier to get than tubal ligations and abortions.
as for the preventing pregancies bullshit... no contraception is failsafe, even vasectomies and tubal ligation have a 0.5% failure rate, and we all know of "pill" babies....
working out what to do when you find yourself pregnant unexpectedly is hard, I was in a position to keep mine, but others are not, so need the right to do what they need to do, and that is better than trapping a woman for 20 years to raise a kid they did not want
There is no male comparison to abortion. A tube tie is the closest you could compare to a vasectomy, but even then the comparisons are thin given the increased dangers of female sterilisation.
Speaking of sterilisation, I'd like to flip your agrument to look at the issue of involuntary sterilisation.
There are a lot of men out there who cannot sire children, and not through their own choice, or lack of a partner. The hoops that the government has put in place for couples have to jump through to get fertility treatment make getting an abortion seem easy.
There is an 18 month wait list for publically funded IVF, when you get it there is only a 50% chance of a healthy 30y.o female carrying to full term (reducing as you get older) if it fails the governemt might give you a second shot, but if that fails, then you're on your own (at $9,000 to $12,000 a time!).
So from a position of one of those affected men, it can be very difficult to watch a perfectly capable, healthy woman, who would be in a good position to love and care for a child, to abort it because they just dont want a child.
So while I support the womans right to abort, and I feel that there are circumstances where abortion should be approved with much smaller hoops to jump through.
To me it sounds like the current process needs review, but I must stress that there should always be a sound robust proper process, one that includes councilling both before, during and after the fact.
(Sorry I've hidden my name as my partner doesn't wish for us to tell the world about our infertility problems)
"And who cares if someone is having more than one abortion? What's it to you?"
Who pays for it? If they want to go to a private provider thats fine. Otherwise we should care given that it's placing a strain on our health system and our tax dollars are paying for it.
The morning after pill is there for a reason chaps which discounts the rape argument. Certainly a very small percentage of those seeking abortions may be as a result of failed contraception, in which case fair enough.
But how many of those are a result of a women failing to take responsibility for her own health in the first place by failing to use contraception. Ignorance or lack of access is no longer an excuse in this day and age.
And abortions aren't hard to come by, any GP outside of the extreme Christian fundie types will give them on demand and even they are obligated to refer to another GP in that case. Go and see your local GP and get some first hand experience if you don't believe me.
I think we should be asking why so many woman each year need abortions and what failings are going on in that almost 40% were those seeking repeat abortions before we go about making access even easier.
"Who pays for it? If they want to go to a private provider thats fine. Otherwise we should care given that it's placing a strain on our health system and our tax dollars are paying for it." - Ha and yet I'm guessing you're also against the DPB? Which medical procedures do you think should be publically funded and which shouldn't be?
"The morning after pill is there for a reason chaps which discounts the rape argument." - Yeah most rape survivors are able to race down to the clinic straight after their assault. If a rape complaint is filed with police (which most aren't) then the doctor will hopefully suggest the morning after pill. It doesn't always work and it's not always available. So no it doesn't 'discount the rape argument' (barf).
Again you don't know that abortions aren't hard to come by Kim. You're just saying that because that's what you want to believe. Abortions aren't done by your local GP. Of course you don't know that - you're ill informed and making up crap to suit your argument. Abortions can take a long time to get. Two seperate appointments then a referral to a hospital/clinic. If you live in a rural area it's even harder.
Your hysteria over women having more than one abortion is ridiculous. If your only worry is the cost then figure out how much it costs YOU PERSONALLY and I'll send you a cheque. And the changes to the abortion laws as part of Chadwick's bill would make abortion cheaper for the taxpayer.
*publicly
"But how many of those are a result of a women failing to take responsibility for her own health in the first place by failing to use contraception. Ignorance or lack of access is no longer an excuse in this day and age."
To answer the first - you don't know. There are no stats on this that I am aware of. However in my own conversations with, and reading about, women who have been in situations of unwanted pregnancy (not all of whom have had abortions btw) every one has either been a result of contraceptive failure or rape.
Sadly there is still ignorance about contraception, as parents can pull their children out of sex ed classes.
But again we end up arguing about women's rights to control their bodies when the point of this post was that we don't distrust men to make similar decisions about their bodies and their reproductive futures. How about you address that?
So - Kim sez ... 'more tax cuts for the rich, less choice for lower to middle class women.
'. Pretty much sums up most arguments posed by market fundamentalists these. They are a tiresome bunch....
Julie, have you read "Freakonomics" by Steven D Levitt & Stephen J Dubner?
They link abortion directly to crime statistics. (please read on before you all take my head off)
In 1980 the US courts ruled in favour of the womans right to abort (google Roe vs. Wade) this allowed for previously expensive back street or overseas abortions (usually an option available only to the rich) to become legalised in the US.
Legalisation dropped the cost and made it much more accessable to all areas of society. Within the year 30,000 abortions were registered.
Shocking stats if you're a christian fundamentalist! .. this is where they would usually stop reading!
As the 90's approached the US was in the depths of a huge and ever increasing crime wave with no end in sight. But from 1994 to 1997 crime statistics started falling and authorities were unable to explain why.
The two authors of "freakonomics" explained that this drop directly relates to Roe v's Wade.
In states where they had high abortion rates in the 80's their crime rate fell dramatically, in states where the abortion rate was smaller, their crime rate was smaller. thus directly linking crime to abortion.
The theory is that as it was easier to not have those "unwanted" children, they were never given the chance to grow up in a negative septic environment, so therefore didnt become criminals.
Those who were concieved did so to loving caring parents, who were in a position to provide and care for them, and therefore were less likely to grow up to become criminals.
So abortion definitely has a place in society, for those who are unable to bring the child into a suitable environment it is a very real solution.
Just a quick note on the much lauded morning after pill, this pill works by delaying ovulation not much use when the ovulation may have already begun, the morning after pill has a failure rate due to the way it works.
So to those who say oh just get the morning after pill, well that may not work either. Also if you had a contraceptive failure often the first you know of it is when you find out you are pregnant.
"Abortions aren't done by your local GP. Of course you don't know that"
Oh please, GP's are the first step in the process, or didn't you know that?
If I was a right wing fundie I would want more abortions not less, as it's certainly not desirable from such a political viewpoint to have more unwanted children rather than less.
All I was suggesting that due to the costs involved, not to mention the horrible impact it has on the mental health of some women that the first point in question should be how can we reduce the number of abortions required.
Whether this be through education or making those seeking repeat abortions pick up part of the tab should be included in this debate.
It's a shame that some people can't debate the issue without this childish and rather ironic labelling of anyone who doesn't share the herds view to the letter as a religous fundie or Roger Douglas clone.
In light of another poster in this thread it also seems slightly lopsided that posters here can be so militant and rigid in demanding choice in aborting pregnancy yet so silent upon improving access for the infertile women who go through such a struggle and extreme financial hardship merely for a chance at getting pregnant.
The rights of the infertile? Well, I've been there and done that and it was all kinds of hell. So much so that I am not particularly interested in posting about it. In any case, it would be a complete DERAIL of this thread, which is about which type of people are allowed to make their own reproductive decisions, and which aren't, and the curious way that gender aligns with reproductive autonomy.
"In light of another poster in this thread it also seems slightly lopsided that posters here can be so militant and rigid in demanding choice in aborting pregnancy yet so silent upon improving access for the infertile women who go through such a struggle and extreme financial hardship merely for a chance at getting pregnant."
If that is aimed at me I haven't replied to that comment because I have fertility issues myself. If someone doesn't want to address a particular post there can be many reasons for that. It's pretty stupid to assume anyone is being 'silent' on anything just because they don't immediately comment on a blog post.
You said: "And abortions aren't hard to come by, any GP outside of the extreme Christian fundie types will give them on demand" - I merely pointed out that you don't get an abortion at your GP. You have to have at least two consultations. Which can be weeks apart. You're claiming you know every single woman in New Zealand's experience with abortion and you don't. On this blog and many others women have talked about how long it takes to get an abortion, how taxing it is, how stressful and expensive etc. You're choosing to ignore that for a reason.
But whatever I'm done arguing about this today. Have a nice day everyone.
Kim do you think women enjoy having abortions? Is that why some have them more than once?
GP's do not make it easy. A friend of mine had a horrible time trying to get an abortion a couple of years back (In UK not NZ). She had big delays because they first doctor was very difficult about it, and we assumed this was for religious reasons. It was a horrible time for her having to wait like that. I really don't think it is 'easy' to go through from what I have seen.
Boganette - sorry to be the bearer of bad news but not everything is about you.
The anonymous comment posted above att 11:26 today about infertility was from me and about me.
Kim - well said :)
Anon at 3.18pm, it was Kim who made the point that some people here weren't talking enough about infertility, and Boganette appeared to me to be responding to that criticism.
The point of my post remains - we are happy to let men make their own decisions about permanently ending their ability to reproduce, but strong objection is raised when an individual woman, knowing her own circumstances and mind better than anyone else, wants to end an unwanted pregnancy. Why the double standard?
BTW I get a bit annoyed at the whole "if we have more unwanted pregnancies that go full term we will have more children available for adoption for the infertile" argument. That really is treating women as incubators.
The heartbreak of infertility is real and I know just how privileged I am that it is not a problem for me. To use it thought to justify forcing women to go through pregnancies they don't want to continue? It's solving something that is unjust and unfair by doing something that's also unjust and unfair. Which is no way to come up with a sustainable solution.
"Kim do you think women enjoy having abortions?"
No they are rather horrific and horribly invasive procedures which scar some woman for life.
"Is that why some have them more than once?"
Why do you think they have them more than once? The miniscule chance of contraception failing the first time is small, whats the chance of it failing that woman a second time? It's a virtual statistical non-entity and certainly not representitive of the 40% we have at current going through their 2nd, third fourth or who knows how many abortions each year.
Personally I would rather we looked at understanding why such a high percentage of woman are having repeat abortions. It indicates to me that something in the system is already failing and rather than merely making it easier and more accessible we should be trying to prevent the preventable in the first place. Have an inquiry into that first, before making access to abortions easier and at a later term.
I would much rather my tax dollars go towards paying for the IVF treatment of all those woman struggling so hard against infertility whom we know not only want children but will be fantastic parents rather than funding such a significant proportion of repeat abortions each year. It just seems a horribly inequitable and unjust allocation of resources.
That's just patently ridiculous. You might as well say you'd rather taxpayers money went on ponies for everyone than keeping prisoners warm. As I understand it, IVF is in the range of $10,000 per cycle, whereas abortion is day surgery without anaesthetic, which I'd guess at $1000 a pop. If you save that cost by making the pregnancy go to full term, then you've also got the costs to the taxpayer of full maternity care, plus the health and education costs of the kid, plus probably income support for the family. They're not related and they're not a zero sum game.
Preventing repeat abortions by making effective long term contraception more available is a better comparison.
Whilst I am anti-abortion, I'm not happy about the idea of limiting abortion in order to have children for infertile couples to adopt. It's just way too Handmaid's Tale for me.
I would rather see the mothers being able to access help so that they can raise their own children well. Although to be fair I can see the heart break for an infertile couple when other women easily get pregnant and yet choose to abort.
Muerk
Although to be fair I can see the heart break for an infertile couple when other women easily get pregnant and yet choose to abort.
I don't, really. Those other women have nothing to do with them, and their decisions have nothing to do with them. Privately feeling upset still might be part of normal human emotion, I'll grant; complaining about it publicly is crossing a line.
Anon - 3:18:00 PM - I was replying to Kim calling people out for not replying to your comment (I thought that was fairly obvious because I cut and pasted Kim's specific comment on it and then gave my reply underneath said comment).
I offer another perspective on this issue. I was really interested by the idea of putting certain requirements on a man before he can have a vasectomy.
I like that idea very much. You see, I am a woman, married to a man who had his vasectomy in his previous marriage. Him and his ex had 3 kids, and before they got hitched, she (the ex) had at least 2 abortions "on demand" that I know of.
I will require IVF [terribly expensive, and we do NOT qualify for public funding here in NZ...but that's a whole 'nother story :( ]
So, I can say with certainty from my experience, that a vasectomy can definitely hurt people in the man's future. I have been made in fertile by a choice made in a previous relationship. My choice has been taken away, but in this case it's about the ability to actually have a child, not abort one.
I would strongly recommend that all men who wanted vasectomy on demand, to have some semen frozen and stored, for just in case. Because it's one hell of a lot cheaper than the $15K for IVF, or the heartbreak when you can't afford it.
Post a Comment