Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To wonder if boys should be vasectomised at birth?

499 replies

Dutch1e · 17/02/2017 20:30

If a vasectomy was painless, 100% reversible and could only be reversed when the boy had reached adulthood and had some counselling sessions to help him understand the implications of his decision, would it be a good idea to make vasectomies normal for baby boys?

Just musing on the threads about child services, child abuse and thinking about accidental pregnancies

OP posts:
Blinkingblimey · 18/02/2017 00:07

To be fair this is a very interesting discussion - without going into detail a very simple 'what's most practical'?..opt in/out when you have the maturity & desire to make that decision..would that make life simpler for those coming of age or would the lack of responsibility (& thereby experience) required for their choices & decisions in the long run actually make them less useful members of society?!

BoomBoomsCousin · 18/02/2017 00:08

As a thought experiment, if there were a painless, 100% safe and 100% reversible way to turn off fertility then I think it would be quite a good idea to make that the default at birth. I don't think you should be required to undergo counselling to get it reversed. You should just have to turn up and ask for it. But getting rid of accidental pregnancies would be marvelous. And I would really, really hope it was available and used for both sexes.

PacificDogwod · 18/02/2017 00:09

IME with teenagers (personally and professionally) even if this option was available, many would think 'won't happen to me' and carry on regardless GrinHmm

YourOtherLeft · 18/02/2017 00:11

If we're vasectomising baby boys, can we also staple everyone's stomach at birth to prevent them getting obese? After all, obesity causes many people great misery and is a huge drain on the NHS. People could get the process reversed as adults when they have gotten used to not eating too much.

How about a device implanted in everyone's stomach at birth that eliminates alcohol before it hits the bloodstream, which can be disabled at the age of 18 (21 in America)? And on the subject of mind-altering drugs, how about a device implanted in the bloodstream that eliminates MDMA, Tetrahydrocannabinol (thanks Wiki) etc before it reaches the brain and can only be turned off at 18. Hang on, maybe that one shouldn't have an "off" switch, they are illegal drugs after all. Hmmm. Let's leave the alcohol one switched on permanently too, alcohol would certainly be illegal if it was invented today!

While we're at it, how about a device that monitors your thoughts to protect against socially harmful ideas. That one could be selectively altered as you get older. At 3 it's "I must not hit anyone", at 13 it's "I must not have sex". Again, that one we may want to keep switched on even after 18 - it would be a good way to stop certain people gathering in large numbers with the intent of causing social unrest!

Excellent, I think I've just about got my wish-list sorted. Welcome to a better humanity. Fitter, happier, more productive.

OP, I don't mean to sound flippant but history shows us how easy it is for a country to slide into totalitarian dictatorship where people have their bodily autonomy forcibly removed. I totally get your point, but making sure this kind of idea is never put into practice is part of what keeps our society a democracy.

RebelRogue · 18/02/2017 00:12

Bert but would they really?

Unless for the purposes of the thought experiment we just assume everything would be perfect from the procedure,to the reversal and the conditions for the reversal? Then yeah,why not? But I'd prefer a later age(start of puberty) and something like a pill(taken by choice preferably) by both girls and boys.

BertrandRussell · 18/02/2017 00:12

"have find the idea of tying a baby girl's tubes just as abhorrent. What are your views on tying the tubes of baby girls Bert?"

I don't know. Isn't that what we're discussing? Obviously, the instinctive, visceral response is absolutely not. But if it was 100% pain and risk free and reversible? What is the argument against? It's impossible, surely, to argue that there are no benefits to the child. And that, plus the reversibility, means you can't compare it to circumcision, which has no benefits and is not reversible.

BoomBoomsCousin · 18/02/2017 00:13

Pacific that would be why parents would get it done at birth - so infertility is the default to carry on regardless with, and it takes an extra step to become fertile. Instead of the current situation where fertility is the default and you have to actively try to hinder that fertility. Do you think most teenagers would generally go to the trouble of having the vasectomy etc. reversed just for the sake of it?

BertrandRussell · 18/02/2017 00:15

YourOtherLeft, yes, your final paragraph says more or less what I think too.

BoomBoomsCousin · 18/02/2017 00:18

YourOther do you think accidental pregnancy is like people choosing to get drunk or take illegal drugs? Because I dont think most people have sex with the intention of getting pregnant most of the time. A closer analogy would be a device that protected against overdose - which might be quite a good idea.

MommaGee · 18/02/2017 00:21

It's interesting that people have got so incredibly would up at the idea of any limit on male fertility

It's interesting that people have got so incredibly would up at the idea of unnecessary medical procedures carried out on babies when they cannot consent any limit on male fertility

MommaGee · 18/02/2017 00:25

But if it was 100% pain and risk free and reversible? What is the argument against? It's impossible, surely, to argue that there are no benefits to the child there are no benefits that responsible sex ed cannot also provide and this would still be needed because of Stu's. And yes its only 99% effective but I'd bet most unplanned pregnancies occur through a lack of contraception "it all happened so quick", " he said he was too big for a condom?" or human error "so then I just turned it inside out and used it again!"

RebelRogue · 18/02/2017 00:26

Tbh if you look on parenting forums contraception seems to be 50/50 rather than 90+% effective. Everyone and their mother got pregnant while on contraception.

MommaGee · 18/02/2017 00:27

Why are you taking a theoretical thread so very, very personally because even hypothetically these would still be real babies. Real babies recovering from unnecessary sedation which carries its own risk. Real babies in tiny little hospital gowns in their tony hotspital cot when they could should be at home.

BertrandRussell · 18/02/2017 00:31

Momma- you have noticed that in this thought experiment the process is pain,risk and side effect free?

YetAnotherSpartacus · 18/02/2017 00:33

This is a thought experiment, right?

I haven't read all the answers but my work sometimes takes into the territory of child protection / care / welfare / looked after children, etc. and I can say that there have been times where I have seriously wished that I could put birth control in the water supply ... some people really should not be having children ....

MommaGee · 18/02/2017 00:35

Well maybe I'm just to db to play the game properly Bertrand. What's the ppojt if its not rooted in some realistic world. There is no unicorn to loss the baby's nose and magic away the fertility of little boys and there never will be so it becomes a pointless discussion on an emptive topic.

And tbf even if the unicorn existed, he'd be told to get the hell away from my child and I'd judge harshly anyone I knew who went ahead unless there was a severe medical reason they should never be allowed to reproduce

RebelRogue · 18/02/2017 00:36

YetAnother i totally get what you mean,i know a few cases where I'd do the procedure myself if i could. But again,where do you draw the limit? And who decides what the limit would be?

BertrandRussell · 18/02/2017 00:41

OK. Let's change the argument slightly from vacectomise to "given a drop of something that tastes really nice that means they are infertile until they decide they want a baby.And then they take another drop of something that reverses it.

Cherrysoup · 18/02/2017 00:41

Thing is, lots of operations are carried put on children without their consent, notably the legal one, male circumcision. Would the adult agree to the op if he could go ahead in time? Cutting off bits of a baby is socially acceptable/desirable in some sections of society. I find this abhorrent.

DioneTheDiabolist · 18/02/2017 00:45

What is the argument against?
My mother had to deliver a Safe Sex programme to middle aged people, following a sharp increase in STIs in our region. Tying tubes may lessen pregnancies for some, but it doesn't reduce the risk of assault, abuse or STIs.

It would do nothing but provide a false sense of security. And an easy way for governments to implement eugenic programmes. What is the argument in favour of forced, albeit temporary, infertility?

RebelRogue · 18/02/2017 00:48

OK. Let's change the argument slightly from vacectomise to "given a drop of something that tastes really nice that means they are infertile until they decide they want a baby.And then they take another drop of something that reverses it.

Sure why not? But available for both sexes. And ofc that doesn't solve the issues of STI's.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 18/02/2017 00:49

YetAnother i totally get what you mean,i know a few cases where I'd do the procedure myself if i could. But again,where do you draw the limit? And who decides what the limit would be?

I know what you mean ... it's not even about numbers, though. Sometimes there is just one baby born to someone who really should not be pregnant or contemplating motherhood and some men really should keep their sperm to themselves. I'm thinking of cases where babies are born with FAS or similar or the father is abusive to mother and child ...

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 18/02/2017 00:50

It's interesting that people have got so incredibly would up at the idea of any limit on male fertility

Oh fgs people were wound up about a howlingly ludicrous suggestion to force unnecessary operations on babies.

What if the thought experiment was to render girls infertile until they made a conscious decision to have a baby? Obviously by a 100% painless, safeand reversible method

It would be just as stupid.

MommaGee · 18/02/2017 00:58

Thing is, lots of operations are carried put on children without their consent, notably the legal one, male circumcision.
Yep and I stand by every one I signed off because they were medically necessary. I'd tell them to shove their scissors up their bum if they went near his tinkle!!!!

ActuallyThatsSUPREMECommander · 18/02/2017 01:00

They are working on physical, reversible LARC for men even as we speak - this thought experiment may not be nearly as fantastic as some people imagine. My guess is that Premiership teams will be frogmarching their youth teams down to the doctors once a year - with only the ones with a note from their WAGs allowed to skip their annual injections Grin