When They Say Birth Control, They Mean Birth Control
The state of Virginia makes a man wait 30 days to have a vasectomy...by state law!
I don't normally post stuff about myself on the blog, but this has me so pissed off that I simply cannot help myself.My wife and I have been married for over four years and long ago decided that we do not want to have children. As such, we decided that it was wise for me to get a vasectomy. I was more than willing to do so and, after getting a referral from my doctor, made an appointment for a consultation with a urologist/surgeon who is going to perform the procedure.
All went well until the end, when I was informed that under Virginia law, I was required to wait one month to have the vasectomy because I did not already have children and then had to sign a waiver stating that I was now aware that I could not have the procedure for at least 30 days.
...It is not like my wife and I made this decision on a whim, so why does the state of Virginia feel it has any right to force me to wait one month in order to rethink our decision not to have children?
He connects it to the religious nutwads. Speculation on his part, yes. But, read this crap he linked to by Al Mohler, who's convinced he knows the way for the rest of us:
The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children. This reminds us of our responsibility to raise boys to be husbands and fathers and girls to be wives and mothers. God's glory is seen in this, for the family is a critical arena where the glory of God is either displayed or denied. It is just as simple as that.The church must help this society regain its sanity on the gift of children. Willful barrenness and chosen childlessness must be named as moral rebellion. To demand that marriage means sex--but not children--is to defraud the creator of His joy and pleasure in seeing the saints raising His children. That is just the way it is. No kidding.
If you don't think this and other such hog slop is the goal of a number -- perhaps a large number -- of the Republicans in Congress, you're deluding yourself.
Following that line of reasoning, women past the age of menopause should not be allowed to marry, nor should men who have a low sperm count, or women who are incapable of getting pregnant due to health or fertility problems.
The next step would be to put a time limit on marriage so that if you don't produce a child in let say, 3 years, your marriage will be automatically dissolved. Next they could tell you exactly how many children you should have, and within what time frame.
So when are you going to get these idiots out of government and lock them back up in a church where they belong?
Chris at June 9, 2005 8:17 AM
The "gift" of children? I know some parents who would like to return their gifts in exchange for something useful.
eric at June 9, 2005 10:36 AM
When I had my tubal fulgration several years ago, my doctor counseled me extensively because I was of prime child-bearing age and had no children. I had to sign a whole bunch of paperwork stating that I knew the sterility was irreversible. Hey, I don't sleep with people that won't wrap the package, but accidents happen. I didn't want to set myself up for a painful choice, and I knew I would rather be dead than pregnant. So I felt the most logical thing for me to do was to get this procedure done. My doctor never demanded that I wait 30 days, though. That's ridiculous.
Goddyss at June 9, 2005 1:33 PM
Wasn't it everyone that had to wait, though, not just men without children? I seem to recall hearing my father discuss it among friends, and saying that after my (accident) sister came along very soon after my other sister, he went to get a vasectomy, and the office sort of hemmed and hawed, saying they usually don't do them so soon after someone has a baby.
Kate at June 9, 2005 5:29 PM
I find it amazing that pro-"choice" people, as well as pro-"life" people are more intent on speaking their mind (what there is of it) than addressing the issue in depth (pun added for Lena). There are people who shouldn't have kids and know it, as well as those who shouldn't have kids and don't know it. These people have individual rights. If each "side" acted as though the battle was about people rather than their opinion - if they acted as though their argument has been lost - they could fix a few things.
Fundamentalists could work on fixing the ignorance leading to too-early pregnancy and on destigmatizing young women who make a mistake, then keep the baby. "Choice" fans could actually acknowledge that choice happens before sex, and that the designed purpose of sex is to produce children - thus shifting emphasis to prevention of unwanted pregnancies. I mention this because the argument centers on the abortion procedure - which is akin to arguing about liposuction methods endlessly rather than telling the fat to back away from the trough.
Both sides could actually require men to act decently. But, alas, it's more important to shriek slogans.
Has it ever occurred to polypragmatists, the busybodies, that a person has the biggest stake in conception? I think not.
Radwaste at June 10, 2005 6:25 AM
Your writter's comments are a complete load of crap. Nowhere in any Bible or any version of the Bible does it state that it is our obligation to either marry or to have children.
T at June 10, 2005 3:55 PM
Hey, Amy, can I take this one please?
Okay, T. First of all, learn how to spell "writer". Secondly, before you go spewing on about the bible, you really should learn your own religion. I know it, and I don't even believe in your god.
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)
"But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you." (I Corinthians 7:28)
"I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." (I Timothy 5:14)
And of course, Genesis is rife with commands to have children:
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that [is] with thee, of all flesh, [both] of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Gen 26:22 And he removed from thence, and digged another well; and for that they strove not: and he called the name of it Rehoboth; and he said, For now the LORD hath made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.
Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I [am] God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins.
Okay? I know, I know. You didn't count on bumping into someone with a brain that actually knows the bible. I'm Goddyss. And you can kiss my ass.
Goddyss at June 10, 2005 4:31 PM
I would, but it apears that I would have to get in line behind you. No thanks. I've had enough fun for one day. Have a nice day.
T at June 10, 2005 4:41 PM
It also 'apears' (sic) that you don't know how to use a dictionary, much less a complicated text such as the bible.
Goddyss at June 10, 2005 5:41 PM
To be fair, the full Corinthians passage that you quoted starts out by saying something along the lines of don't get married, but if you get married that's not a sin.
I'm always confused when evangelists (not you, I'm just talking about people I see on CNN and fox) use Paul to promote their agenda of restoring the Sanctity of marriage, being that Paul's letters are the only places in the bible where someone takes a crap on marriage.
Otherwise, yeah, it really irks me when someone misquotes his or her own religion and I know they're wrong even though it's certainly not my religion.
ex. of something some drunk girl said to me while I was tending bar a few years back, "Nowhere in the Bible does it say sex before marriage is wrong." I meant to point out that the bible said that in Corinthians, Matthew, Kings, Leviticus, Genesis, and probably Deuteronomy, but what came out was "fuckin' A" while I poured her a gift shot of Red Headed Slut.
Little ted at June 12, 2005 10:33 AM
The bible contradicts itself all over the place. Therein lies the appeal for biblical debate. You can pretty much prove or disprove anything using the same book.
Here's a good example:
Proverbs 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Ah, that's fun. Right next to each other too. Gotta love it.
Goddyss at June 13, 2005 11:58 AM
Leave a comment