If the past 30 years has taught me anything it's that women really, really, REALLY want to have the option to abort their babies. Being libertarian and a misanthrope, I'm not going to stand in their way. Furthermore, though I am pro-choice, I cannot think of a better albatross to throw around the neck of a more deserving group of people than women who are proud to abort their children. It's a horrific decision. It indicates poor planning on their part. And the consequences include something that borders on murdering a human life. If they desperately want that right, then by all means let them have it.
However, the vehemence by which women defend their rights to abortion, birth control, even getting to the point they demand government paid tampons, indicates to me that there's a psychological, cult like obsession with "reproductive rights."
I take the foolish, idealistic notion of doing what maintains the freedom of the individual, balanced with what's in the best interest of the children. And to show you how literal I am, that means aborting children whose mothers are so bad they forgot to take a birth control pill, or are the types of mothers to abort their babies. Life is not precious in my opinion, especially if it will be tortured by a single mom who really, truthfully doesn't want you, or is so irresponsible that they will abort you in the third trimester. A non-existent life is better than a life replete with being brought up by an incompetent single mom. So by all means, abort away.
But it goes beyond that.
Modern day women, feminists, and even our rank and file women are more than willing to draw blood to protect their precious "reproductive rights," unrightly spilling it over to demand other people pay for their birth control, abortions, and unfortunate children who make it past the finish line.
I have a much more efficient, simple, and fair solution:
Mandatory vasectomies for all men.
I've wrestled with this for many years in my life because I was told a vasectomy was 40% permanent. Meaning that only 60% of vasectomies could be reversed, and thus you REALLY REALLY REALLY had to know that you did not want to have children if you went forward with this.
But logic and common sense made me question this. And though not a doctor, I wondered, "can't you simply just take a syringe and extract some semen to artificially impregnate somebody if you wanted to, even though you had a vasectomy?"
Turns out you can.
There are 3-4 ways to extract sperm from a man who has undergone a vasectomy. They are not all successful at first, but after 8 tries studies have found a 100% rate of successfully extracting sperm. And though there will be exceptions where an individual or two cannot ever get sperm extracted post-vasectomy, the numbers brought about an interesting epiphany.
If every guy got a vasectomy,
And the only way to get sperm was with one of these 3-4 unconventional methods,
we'd all be able to still have children, but.....
men would completely own and monopolize reproductive rights.
For some reason, that simple statement right now is sending shock waves down the spinal chords of many women today. Perhaps all of them. And I really to this day don't know why. Women wanted reproductive control and rights and men gave it to them. So why should the prospect of men universally getting vasectomies "screeeeeee" women? Furthermore, shouldn't the consequences of sex (that would be "the childrenzzzz") be of ultimate importance? I cannot help but see how giving men equal authority to women (since women have the nuclear abortion option) as to whether a child is birthed or not would make so many people upset.
But it does, and so let me enumerate the reasons why.
First, there is this feminist (more or less) based cult that obsesses about reproductive rights. Any sane man long ago would have said, "OK, you got the same rights, now let's move on and make a great society." But most within the leftists/feminist political world are so pathetic they don't want to move on. They CAN'T move on. Because all they have is complaining and playing the victim.
Putting reproductive rights in the hands of men denies them of all the steam in their professional victimhood-oppression engine. It completely negates and neutralizes them because it makes it a non-issue.
You don't want kids?
You want to have consequentless free sex?
You want to determine whether a kid comes into this world or not?
Well, worry no longer sister. It ain't even getting to that stage. All men are shooting blanks! Rest easy sister, you can have all the child-free sex you want.
It would take away their pet cause, their core reason for oppression, and they simply don't want to go and find/concoct another. And they CERTAINLY don't want to go out and find a real job!
Second, there would be no more baby-daddy black mail. No more givemedats. Single mothers, who never had any intention of raising their children or being a good wife, whose SOLE purpose was to get some government cheese by breeding would simply be denied and then (once again, the worst nightmare of a lazy person) be forced to get a real job and support herself.
No more "accidental pregnancies."
No more "oops, I forgot to take my pill."
No more "but I want a baaaaabbbyyyyyy!!!!"
No my fine good sir. Unless there is a syringe stuck in your balls, currently extracting semen for the EXPRESS purpose of impregnating a woman, there is not "oops." There is no "accident." And with that, the multi-hundred-billion-dollar industry of undesired child support goes away. It's just a question of whether you're a smart enough man to drop $1,200 on some vasectomy insurance.
Third, ask yourself where most women are employed today.
The truth is a disproportionate plurality is simply employed taking care of other women's children they couldn't take care of themselves. This is a huge, MULTI-TRILLION dollar industry per year that includes the education system, child care, day care, pre-k, and other government leviathans that have been expressly and purposely made to replace men while employing women.
The millions of barren women employed in these industries would have to forfeit their jobs if there was not a constant supply of unwanted children being birthed by women who "oops" forgot to take the pill. These women, no doubt feminists, leftists, and democrats, who ALSO have nothing else to live for in life, will scream BLOODY MURDER if you men dare to get vasectomies on a national level and put control of reproduction completely into the hands of men. Without all these illegitimate children, all social workers would lose their jobs. All day care operators would lose their licenses. Every woman who aborted their children and have nothing left to live for, except their professions, would have to give up their professions of taking care of other women's children. Men, en masse, getting vasectomies would force these women to realize their complete and utter pointlessness and worthlessness, and they simply are not going to have any of that.
They need dysfunctional boys.
They need gangsters.
They need all you boys and men suffering.
Because how else would they legitimize their "Masters in Social Work" or "Masters in Psychology?"
There are very few options real men, real Americans have left to fight against the marxist, oppressionist, and simply hate-filled left. The most powerful of which I believe is that all men get a vasectomy and then "we'll talk" about having children later. It puts reproductive rights squarely into the hands of more somber, judicious people (that would be us - men) and it would end the welfare state within a generation. Shoot, you might even have families where BOTH parents (that would be the "mother" and the "father") actually wanted to have children and all the societal ills of socialist feminism and single-mommy-hood would go away.
Of course, you boys understand WHY modern day women, with all their indoctrination and brainwashing are going to fight tooth and nail if you dare to all get vasectomies.
But then I ask....
Well, isn't "choice" the ultimate principle and value within the women's movement?
Seriously, you men want to strike back at this socialist, feminist, anti-male nonsense? Talk to your urologist and seriously think about getting a vasectomy. You're statistically not giving anything up. But you sure are depriving feminists of the vital hill of "children" they so cowardly hide behind.
__________________
Check out Aaron's other cool sites:
27 comments:
I was grinning all the way through your post. While this is classic provider induced shortage manipulation, it could work. My one concern is that after OPEC did this in the seventies, the price of oil crashed into the teens per barrel and stayed there a long time. They didn't see that coming and could we be asking for unintended consequences by going down this road?
-Fuzziewuzziebear
If I ever become a controversial person I will publicly take a billion-dollar life insurance policy in your name as a dead-man's-switch.
$40 co-pay. Insurance picked up the rest. Best decision ever. The Captain forgot one important bit of information. Never tell a woman you've been snipped.
There is a male birth control method being tested in India now. One treatment and completely reversible. Women will never allow it here.
Maybe Atwood could write a new novel based on this
Realistically speaking, that's a great idea. Of course, most men are blue pill and believe that kids will cause them eternal happiness, so they would never do it, unfortunately. However, on an individual level, you're still making the world a better, less overpopulated place by getting snipped yourself. I did it and have no regrets. You're also protecting yourself from losing assloads of money (generally 25% of net income per kid).
Oh you warrior of the scythe, I treasure your blood dripping moments brilliance when knees are separated from femurs; Delicious. Or well done Sir! I've been vacillating on the vasectomy and you have coined the bumper sticker: Pro Vasectomy
Your hatred of women is sickening. You're a psychopath. Shows like Criminal Minds and Law and Order could base an entire season on an evil character based on you.
Never forget: a woman's right to murder her baby is sacred in the United States.
Love your take on things Pard. Always a new perspective from you.
"Well, isn't "choice" the ultimate principle and value within the women's movement?"
Well yes, just not the 'choice' you think it is.
The choice is not about reproduction. Its about the choice of who will be the payor of johnny or suzie. 20% of children in the intact family are not the fathers product. Women are just concerned for being paid for 'services rendered'. Which leads me to believe that you could achieve your aims by legalizing prostitution.
Vox Day would also through a conniption over this as well.
Nevertheless it makes perfect sense.
Damm Sam, you absolutely nailed it. Well done.
Thank You
I fear this is the only cure. I also fear the gubment will just import third world breeders.
It might be easier just to freeze several sperm samples ahead of the vasectomy. Many people already do that. Either way you will go through insemination (which is not the most successful) Plus, no needles...
Hell yes.
I think abortion is absolutely disgusting. Think about how awesome it would be if women were forced to sign a pre-impregnation contract with the man declaring that they give up the right to abort a man's baby if he impregnates her. And that in the event of divorce, custody is 50/50 and she will be getting a full-time job. And that she will be a stay-at-home mother. Any woman fit to be a mother would gladly sign it. Anyone not willing to sign it is unfit to be a mother.
If the following were up to a vote tomorrow:
All in favor of all men getting mandatory vasectomies?
I'd bet a great deal of money more women than men would vote for the affirmative.
Most feminists don't like kids anyway.
88+ percent of the single career women who voted for Hillary would vote in favor of the above.
Good one, Cappy. Don't let the lack of responses to your essays discourage you from writing. I may be in a minority, but I prefer this format to videos.
One of your best postings in quite a while. Good job!
Some years ago, my son-in-law wanted a vasectomy. When he went to the doctor, he was told he needed his wife's written permission. My too feminist daughter was angry. She said a woman doesn't need her husband's permission to kill their baby, but he needs her permission to have a vasectomy. Sick.
Anonymous age 77
"Rest easy sister, you can have all the child-free sex you want ..."
I nominate Aaron Clarey for the position of interim Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning in our newly emergent "Brave New World" ala Aldous Huxley ...
Obviously mankind needs a clean break from classical reproduction models, and so we eventually get to the same conclusion that Huxley made: in order for it to be effective, it has to be universal, and this very likely requires that it be implemented shortly after birth.
Naturally in your role as interim DHC you'll be implementing this proposal for males, females, and whatever odd bits pop out of the hatchery as may occur as statistical errors ...
Don't let anyone ever tell you that you weren't fair to everyone, after all.
So you want men to "own" reproduction? This is more likely to be a Snake Plissken victory: everyone loses except some newly emergent bureaucracy that will literally control everything under creation.
If you thought socialism sucked before, wait until you socialise reproduction itself.
This is what you want, this is what you get ...
And so I can't really support you except as interim DHC, do keep that in mind.
Of course, your aims at this point aren't quite this grand, and so what you've proposed is merely a way of adding an "extraction tax" that limits the number of children without sufficient economic and social supports, which is admirable, but of course this won't stop there.
That's because economic, social, and legal leverage can be applied in such a way where there would come into existence various state-sponsored and privately-sponsored ways around such measures if this were to become widely practised, and so you'd still eventually have to deal with the core problems in their third to fifth order incarnations.
Politically motivated perversions produce interesting programmes such as some of the current K-selection paying for r-selection work-arounds via social welfare schemes, and this would continue to occur even with such measures as yours or where they'll eventually wind up.
While I'm certain you would protest at this point that this isn't what you had in mind at all, this is where it ultimately leads.
It's a Chuck Colson sing-along for a different age: "When you've [got a knife to their] balls, their hearts and minds will follow."
Now if you'll get behind the covert programme to reduce the population by several billion people by means of an everyone-against-everyone Texas Knife Fight Rules global war, I think it's very likely that someone can manage a spot for you within the appropriate "think tank" after all.
There are reasons why diversity and equality are given encouragements within the elite, in case you were wondering what all that insincere babble was really all about ...
The future global battlefield is an equal opportunity work place, and equal opportunity starts at home, although not in our neighbourhoods because we don't follow the advice given to the public.
The Cafe Palmer in Haifa for tea then, next to the old refugee gate? And then we can drive the thirty-five clicks or so from Haifa to where all of the action's going to begin, such a lovely start to a glorious day ...
Split the difference between Agent Smith and Texas Arcane of Vault-Co: most of humanity's only good for fucking and killing, and when you take away fucking, what's left?
Sounds like the death of western civilisation to me. There are simpler and more effective ways of dealing with recalcitrant females.
Great argument. A male pill would work too.
You've got a lot of great takes Aaron, but this isn't one of them.
All of this is well and good, but keep in mind the muzzies are out-breeding us by an order of magnitude.
Shouldn't you be learning how to make a pie or something that would make you more appealing and less unfeminine?
You could simplify this by applying the Last Clear Chance doctrine to child support. If women want absolute power, give them that, along with absolute responsibility. If you are the only person who can put out the fire you don't get to let the fire burn while making somebody else liable if the house burns down.
Post a Comment