enforced contraception

Whoops, posted too early - and before the caveat that I'm indulging in a (not very deep) thought experiment in case that's not obvious!
So, sperm banked, ability to shag for fun unimpeded, conception would have to be done 'legally' - why wouldn't men buy this idea? Unless of course they actually want the chance to be the cuckolder...

At all events, I think we can safely put that idea into the 'it will never happen' box.

It’s a fair point though the women are always the default choice for contraception and restrictions.

Throughout history, societies have been set up to control women in order for men to be sure of their paternity. The drive to have your own children and to not be cuckolded and unwittingly raise another man's child, It still exists today - and even in 'liberated' societies we still have the coercive controllers etc. So - if it was technically possible, on the face of it why wouldn't men jump at this ultimate control -

It wasn't put as a book. It was a comment to a blog post.

Although such a society would make an interesting fiction setting.

It’s a fair point though the women are always the default choice for contraception and restrictions.

Maybe I should apply for that government job

I wonder what the costs of a vasectomy and reversal are versus 20/30 years of contraceptives for women...
maybe a money saver for the NHS.
Would like to read that story if anyone know the title or author.

Has the idea been made into a book series yet?

Something similar to Ginger's idea has been floated before as satire: when a man comes of age, he banks his sperm and is then compulsorily castrated. He decides if and when his frozen sperm is used to father a child with a willing woman. No unwanted pregnancies, no men becoming reluctant fathers because of contraceptive failure, and less male violence because they have less testosterone in their systems. But, like mandatory contraception, it would be a human rights violation and so we can't do it.

This satire is useful as a tool for reframing assaults on women's reproductive freedoms. Suggesting the loss of the family jewels focuses the male mind.

Somewhat sarcastic and riffing on the idea from here:
www.huffpost.com/entry/georgia-vasectomy-ban-abortion-bill_n_5c86c4d6e4b0d936162aea4d

I think GingerPCatt was being sarcastic. Bit like that advert with the pregnant man - if you got pregnant. Oh what have I just said.

I think that as soon as a boy reaches puberty he should have a vasectomy. This can only be reversed when a woman (the female kind) agrees to become pregnant with that man

That is at least as ridiculous as Andrew Sabisky's comments on the issue. It simply wouldn't happen.

Also, you do realise that successful reversal of a vasectomy is by no means guaranteed, don't you? It is very hit or miss, and very often unsuccessful. Therefore, it would be teenage girls and young women who would bear the brunt of this assault by the state.

Enforced contraception should not be applied to either women or men. It shouldn't happen. Ever. People have bodily autonomy and that must be preserved. We don't live in China, where the mirena and other coils or implants are or have been imposed on women in order to try and adhere to the "one child" policy.

I find it all abhorrent and an infringement on our human rights.

Give it 10 years and the term human rights, while still branded around, will be meaningless.

Ginger,
A vasectomy is not forced contraception, that is forced sterilisation. Most vasectomies cannot be reversed anyway. The success rate is abysmally low. It’s equivalent to a hysterectomy on a woman after harvesting and freezing her eggs and telling hers oh, you can have IVF with your frozen eggs if you later get permission to be pregnant.

I find it all abhorrent and an infringement on our human rights.

Well, they need a certain number of children born every year just in case drafting ever comes back.

Not really. There are enough volunteer immigrants who will sign up for four years in the armed forces in return for citizenship. The people suggesting forced contraception are the same ones who have a pragmatic view towards immigrants. They have a very inhuman approach to everything. It’s all about money. Money comes first, human life second.

GingerPCatt

It won't be the man who has to have compulsory contraception, it will just never happen.

Personally I agree with forced contraception. I think that as soon as a boy reaches puberty he should have a vasectomy. This can only be reversed when a woman (the female kind) agrees to become pregnant with that man.
Would sort out the over population problem and child support as the man must agree to support any resulting children if his vasectomy is reversed.

now they want to prevent the child from being created.
Well, they need a certain number of children born every year just in case drafting ever comes back.

It’s a slippery slope.
I know the US tried enforced contraception on women living on benefits after their fourth child. To continue getting benefits they had to agree to the hormone implant or injections. This was advertised so as to stop “welfare queens” just having baby after baby to stay living on benefits and never have to work.
I think they have since abolished it.
But I’m not suprised a U.K. politician has proposed it because there is a lot of pressure to reduce the welfare state. Cutting child benefit for extra children was thevstart, now they want to prevent the child from being created.

I don't get the sense that there are a large group of people actually supporting these ideas. It's not similar to some of the sex or gender debates in that way. Most people, left or right, don't like this stuff about forced sterilisation.

One foolish comment by a young person might be one thing, but Sabisky has said controversial things on so many subjects.

Same conference attended by Toby Young that eventually did for his career. Toby Young is currently on twitter whinging about ‘offence archeology’ and sympathising with Sabisky. He says “The defenestration of people from public life for having said controversial things in the past must stop.”

Unclear if he includes the ‘try raping your wife into submission’ comments in that.

However I fear he'll become a free speech martyr.

No-one is curtailing his freedom of speech - this is about who might have listened to him.

Anyway, it took a day for him to jump before he was pushed, and it may be worth noting that in 'He went because the Guardian, Independent etc made it impossible for him to stay' the 'etc' included the DM and the Times.

Adam Rutherford on R4 last night was very good. Odd Boy attended a conference at UCL a few years ago where he got most of this guff from assorted white supremicists, fruitcakes and wierdos.

Rutherford says neither Sabisky nor Cummings are fit to hold office. Both are fascinated by Science but has never done any. Eunichs in a harem and all that.

Reginabambina
A joke is generally a throw away line. He's quoting race theorists and has an interest in evolutionary biology. What he was saying in the National Scotland article above though is advocating rape.
However I fear he'll become a free speech martyr.

Was he actually serious? I know a lot of people who make jokes about ‘sterilising all the plebs’. Obviously they don’t mean it, they’re all hardcore liberals (probably why they make a point of saying really really politically incorrect things all the time). A lot of them also happen to be involved in politics in one way or another. Politicians and public servants are allowed to have an off piste sense of humour too.

Obviously if he’s serious then he’s too thick to be of use in number ten and needed to go.