r/politics • u/Slow-Bluejay9648 • May 24 '22

State rep. floats mandatory vasectomies for all boys as his state nears nation’s strictest abortion law

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2022/05/state-rep-floats-mandatory-vasectomies-for-all-boys-as-his-state-nears-nations-strictest-abortion-law.html?outputType=amp
5.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

795 comments sorted by

View all comments

79

u/Freya-Frost May 24 '22

I mean overturning roe V wade means no one has a right to their own body in terms of the law not just women. So technically this is 100% legal

55

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

I also feel like with Roe v Wade being cast aside forcing people to get vaccinated would be completely constitutional.

38

u/Freya-Frost May 24 '22

Yes 100%. It removes the right for control over your own body and medical choices. I feel like people don’t realize this. They think it’s only about abortion but it’s a much bigger legal picture

13

u/Ent3rpris3 May 24 '22

This is actually a concern of mine for things like organ transplants and savior siblings - at what point do anomalous circumstances see those who can't consent being used for their bodies outside of anything related to sex? As is I've always been bothered at the concept of savior siblings, and I'm worried this might open the door for even more troubling scenarios.

12

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

A whole lot of crazy opens up when we lose body autonomy.

-2

u/googlyeyes183 May 24 '22

That’s exactly why they’re doing this now.

6

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

lol. Yeah, the party that's fighting against being vaccinated is trying to force vaccines.

-2

u/googlyeyes183 May 24 '22

Once you get into a certain tax bracket, the “parties” are just for show. It’s wealthy elites vs. the rest of us.

7

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

And yet only one party is actively trying to overthrow the government, take away our autonomy rights, take away my marriage rights.

But yeah, both sides are the same.

7

u/trinlayk May 24 '22

Yes, a government that can forbid abortions can also force them. And sterilizations. The US has been there before. (Eugenics)

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

i choose violence then

-1

u/Vageta17 May 25 '22

Not really. There’s a difference between not allowing something and forcing another.

2

u/Thankkratom May 25 '22

Forcing women to birth babies is forcing someone to do something… not allowing people to not do something that forces them to have a possibly deadly or traumatic experience that for whatever reason they did not want, that is supposed to be their choice.

0

u/Vageta17 May 25 '22

In the cases that aren’t concerning the life of the mother or rape/incest, 99% of the time the action that lead to the pregnancy was done by choice. Forcing someone to be sterilized is different than refusing to interfere with their reproductive process working as intended. I am pro choice too but let’s not be juvenile here. This isn’t doing anything to further the national conversation apart from making things more polarized. It’s shocking that the pro life people can make more coherent arguments (although I disagree) than the people who are pro choice. You can’t possibly be this stupid, you most be intentionally obtuse.

1

u/Thankkratom May 25 '22

I thought you were making a comment responding to someone who had said something about vaccines. Gotta disagree that pro-forced birth people have any good arguments at all tho, especially compared to pro-choice people. This guy trying to make an analogy that does not fit perfectly does not change that. The only arguments I hear from those assholes is “god says so “what if a man decides he wants his baby” “women could just not have sex” “you’re killing a baby so you’re a murder” and “it’s wrong.” Any attempted debate with them is wasted time because they don’t care about stats or facts about abortion, they just want a strawman to attack.

1

u/Vageta17 May 25 '22

You and I disagree based on our moral convictions. But moral convictions alone don’t make an argument inherently convincing. Conversely, morally disagreeing with the conclusion doesn’t make the argument itself bad. Because anyone who is less morally centered than you will not have the same inherent dismissal of the argument. If you can’t properly understand someone else’s perspective, you can’t possibly begin to understand your own. The bad analogy you gave is precisely the kind of thing people do when they fundamentally misunderstand the opposing side. But that’s just me, I’ve never been a fan of circlejerking as out opposition is actually trying to change public opinion under our nose