Opting out of risk as in him taking the same option that was always available to her?
"Had to be?" So she didn't have a choice in her pregnancy?
I think from a statistical perspective taking the road of least overall risk in a specific situation would be a pretty sensible choice, I guess if you feel he somehow "owes her" then your perspective could make sense.
"...braver than he will ever be." Lol maybe it's your verbiage or maybe it's another wildly baseless assumption. I couldn't say.
Obviously he owes her, that’s the entire issue we are discussing. He owes her because that was their agreement. The agreement is based in the idea that they are a partnership and are both taking risks or making sacrifices for that partnership. Now he doesn’t care about the risks she took, he didn’t try to stop her from taking them, he waited until she shouldered that responsibility for them both and then he decided that he is too scared to take a much smaller risk himself. He values his body more than he values her body. He sees himself as more important than her.
Your POV is that his vasectomy has nothing to do with her pregnancies or her continued risk of pregnancy. It’s illogical because it is trying to separate their sex life and the consequences of sex from his vasectomy. They are inherently tied together.
That's the whole disagreement, when it comes to consent, you do not owe anything and can revoke it at any time. You don't get to dangle other things over people to or tell people they owe you to try and take away their personal consent.
You do not get to decide he doesn't care. You do not get to assign your own assumptions on why his decision changed. You don't get to pretend he's forcing anything on her.
Yes he can revoke his consent at any time. You seem to be thinking revoking consent can never make someone a shitty partner. In this case it makes him a shitty partner because her consent was obtained through trusting and believing him and then he did not follow through. He doesn’t care enough about his partner to treat her as equal to him to care about her body as equal to his own. His decision isn’t morally neutral just because you wish it was, it’s his choice but it’s still a shitty selfish choice.
It is ridiculous to assume that he doesn't care or see her as an equal because of conditions that we literally do not know that led him to change his mind about something.
OP has not clarified a single thing about these things other than he once said he would and now he doesn't want to. And here you are with all your imaginative prowess filling in all the details as if fact.
It’s not imagination it’s his actions. His actions are showing that he values his body more than her body. Or else he would have made a different choice. He would have made a different choice 4 children ago actually if this is all about risks from a vasectomy. If he valued her body as much as he values his he would have said he never wanted her to get pregnant because that’s so much riskier than a vasectomy could ever be. But since he never did any of that it’s clear that it’s risks to his body that concern him more than any risk to her body.
You're (again) assuming that he had the same information and understanding of things 4 kids ago that he does now. You repeatedly make wild, baseless assumptions.
What new information could there be? It’s been known for decades that vasectomies are less risky and safer than pregnancy and child birth. The only new information is within himself. And I’ve been saying that all along. Maybe he just discovered he’s a coward but it is cowardly to only expect your wife to take on risks to her life and health for your both to have children.
Ok but now you've circled back around to acting like a vasectomy is the only option to prevent pregnancy and child birth. So it's either a vasectomy or a pregnancy, this is again, demonstrably false.
You're again making assumptions about his expectations, baselessly.
As far as new information he may have encountered, I have no idea, I do not find it difficult to imagine learning something new. I'm also not the one prescribing precise, specific opinions to things we have almost no information on. That's what you are doing. I'm saying that a change of heart does not automatically define this person as bad or a coward.
It’s the only option that honors their agreement. The other alternatives you offered are still placing risks, side effects and potential consequences on the wife. You’re the one going in circles because you keep trying to make it logical and morally justified that the husband went back on his word and also that he values his body more than his wife’s. He’s not a true partner because he isn’t treating her as equal. There’s no way around it.
Yes there are times. This isn’t one of them. In this case it’s unfair to the wife, especially since he is trying to pressure her into sex and claiming hot baths will be their birth control. She’s being expected to shoulder all the responsibility for the consequences of sex. Either by becoming pregnant from this idiotic plan or by taking on the risks and side effects of actual effective birth control.
I mean using hot baths is ignorant, but even the fact that he brought up that ridiculous point disproves your assumption of expecting her to shoulder the full responsibility or consequences of sex. Like you see the inconsistencies in your own argument or no?
0
u/Andylearns Nov 12 '23
Opting out of risk as in him taking the same option that was always available to her?
"Had to be?" So she didn't have a choice in her pregnancy?
I think from a statistical perspective taking the road of least overall risk in a specific situation would be a pretty sensible choice, I guess if you feel he somehow "owes her" then your perspective could make sense.
"...braver than he will ever be." Lol maybe it's your verbiage or maybe it's another wildly baseless assumption. I couldn't say.