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:
BertrandRussell · 18/02/2017 07:39

"Having indulged the thought experiment, I have to say how utterly unsurprised I am by the rapidity with which the Feminist Chat regulars embraced the idea of cutting up young boys."

Yep. Absolutely. That's what every feminist on this thread is saying. Even if their actual words are saying something completely different. How lucky we are to have you to interpret us.

OrchidaceousRose · 18/02/2017 07:39

But you are perverting philosophical discourse Bertrand. Thought experiments to genuinely determine new possibilities or the best course of action-fine. Making up your mind what would be best for others, then using as thought experiment as sophistry to strip all the meaning from the situation, so you can justify whatever you want by ruling out everything else as illegitimate with the stroke of a pen- not fine.

You know what you're doing and you also know you've taken a name very much in vain.

Deciding what you want, then using thought experiments to justify it is not legitimate. Using thought experiments to find out what is legitimately wantable is fine.

In either case, designating one portion of humanity as superior to another- dangerous. Always has been , always will be.

derxa · 18/02/2017 07:43

No doubt OP you would be the right sort of person who would decide on the reversals. Your DS would never have the procedure in the first place because you would find a way to dodge the draft.

BertrandRussell · 18/02/2017 07:44

You know, I've been BertrandRussell for so long that I initially missed the irony of joining in this conversation!

OrchidaceousRose · 18/02/2017 07:45

Bertrand You and your rational are fundamentally grounded in your human subjectivity. You are not god, you are not objective. It is a mistake to try to pretend to be something you cannot achieve.

Look at the mess Rawl's Veil of Ignorance has gotten us into philosophically, ethically and politically in the last few decades.

OrchidaceousRose · 18/02/2017 07:48

Well quite. At least you're not Socrates, or the cyber hemlock would be winging it's way to you.

Slarti · 18/02/2017 07:57

Are you calling it a "thought experiment" because you are trying to imagine away all the objections, Bertrand? Invasive procedure? Imagine it's not. Painful? Imagine it's not. Open to abuse by those with power? Imagine it's not.

It's still grossly unethical because you are dehumanising a baby, treating it is an object to be modified to your will. Wait, I know, imagine if it didn't mind, right?

Original poster
Dutch1e · 18/02/2017 08:03

derxa it's interesting that your post implies some kind of state mandate. It wasn't what I had in mind when I asked the question, I was thinking it would be a parenting decision then later a discussion between the man and his doctor for the reversal.

I can see how easily the state could get involved if something like this was used in a widespread way. Or maybe not - the state doesn't get heavily involved in contraception now do they? There are no eugenics-style mandates to use contraception before applying for benefits, so what's the difference?

OP posts:
BertrandRussell · 18/02/2017 08:09

"It's still grossly unethical because you are dehumanising a baby, treating it is an object to be modified to your will. Wait, I know, imagine if it didn't mind, right?"

Absolutely, I agree with you. But if you want to have a discussion about the ethics of it, you have to get rid of anything that makes it obviously practically a non starter. It's interesting to think about why we we hold the positions we do. Well, I think it is, anyway.

BertrandRussell · 18/02/2017 08:12

There is a huge amount of murky eugenics type stuff in ththe early days of birth control. But we thought our way out of it......

Mostly.

derxa · 18/02/2017 08:17

I was thinking it would be a parenting decision then later a discussion between the man and his doctor for the reversal. Yes but what sort of discussion would that be? At that point the doctor would be using their personal beliefs to agree to the reversal. What if the doctor didn't believe in sex before marriage or believed that blind people should not have children?
Or doctors could pretend to do the reversal but blame infertility on 'natural' infertility

Slarti · 18/02/2017 08:32

Bertrand, this thread wasn't started as a thought experiment, that's something you've added after the fact to sanitise the OP's horrific idea. Anyone could ask a horrible question like "should all girls be forced to have FGM" or "should women really be allowed to vote" and then later feign innocence with "hey, it's just a thought experiment" but it wouldn't really wash with most people, just as it hasn't here.

You say you absolutely agree that it's unethical and dehumanising yet you've spent the majority of the thread playing the victimised feminist - it's interesting how people have reacted so badly to this little harmless thought experiment, just because it involves men, it would be so different if it was about women. You've projected some rather ghastly, and rather telling, bias onto us here.

BertrandRussell · 18/02/2017 08:38

"Bertrand, this thread wasn't started as a thought experiment"

Of course it was!

Slarti · 18/02/2017 08:38

But if you want to have a discussion about the ethics of it, you have to get rid of anything that makes it obviously practically a non starter

As a PP said you are perverting philosophical discourse. Part of the reason it is unethical is because it is invasive. You can't just imagine that away. Well, you can, but it renders the whole discussion completely meaningless. Should girls be forced to have FGM? You know, if we imagine all the objections you can come up with don't exist? You may as well imagine a square has three sides.

BertrandRussell · 18/02/2017 08:39

"you've spent the majority of the thread playing the victimised feminist"

Grin
BertrandRussell · 18/02/2017 08:46

"Part of the reason it is unethical is because it is invasive. You can't just imagine that away."

Well, yes you can. The use of the word "vasectemised" in the thread title means that the discussion can go no further. Of course you can't vasecemise baby boys, for all the reasons people have so eloquently said.

If you want to have a discussion about rendering boys, or girls or both temporarily and reversible sterile until such time as they want to have children you have to imagine a method which does not add extra ethical issues, such as performing invasive non medically required surgery on people not able to consent. Otherwise, the argument falls at the first hurdle.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 18/02/2017 08:51

Bertrand - I'm not sure that a few here have basic comprehension skills... I suspect that thought experiments may be a bit beyond them.

I get what you (and the OP) are doing / saying, I think, but I don't think you are going to get any joy here.

Slarti · 18/02/2017 08:56

Of course, because if we point out what a horrendous idea the OP had it's because we lack basic comprehension skills. Hmm

derxa · 18/02/2017 08:59

Of course, because if we point out what a horrendous idea the OP had it's because we lack basic comprehension skills Yes again we're back to the right thinking people who should decide. If you disagree with them then you're thick.

BertrandRussell · 18/02/2017 09:02

Just to make my own position clear, I have argued loud and long on here against infant circumcision, so I am hardly like to be in favourite of infant vasectomy!

BertrandRussell · 18/02/2017 09:03

"Of course, because if we point out what a horrendous idea the OP had it's because we lack basic comprehension skills. "

But everyone agrees that it's a horrendous idea- it doesn't need pointing out!

YetAnotherSpartacus · 18/02/2017 09:04

Just to make my own position clear, I have argued loud and long on here against infant circumcision, so I am hardly like to be in favourite of infant vasectomy!

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good 'oh teh wiicked feminists want to slice up men's dangly bits' moral panic. :)

Of course, because if we point out what a horrendous idea the OP had it's because we lack basic comprehension skills Yes again we're back to the right thinking people who should decide. If you disagree with them then you're thick

Which kinds of proves my point. LOL.

Morphene · 18/02/2017 09:05

If you could virally deliver an agent that would switch off ovulation or sperm production with no harm and an antidote that allowed people to become fertile when desired, I can see absolutely no reason not to infect all newborn infants with it.

Obviously the thread is a thought experiment. The way you can tell is that vasectomies of the nature described in the OP don't exist and the OP clearly knows this. So it is, 'what if the world was different, would X then be acceptable'. Hence, thought experiment.

derxa · 18/02/2017 09:09

Which kinds of proves my point. LOL. And your attitude proves mine

Morphene · 18/02/2017 09:09

btw thought experiment threads ALWAYS bomb in AIBU because the whole place is full of people with apparently zero imagination telling you 'but that doesn't exist!' and 'but that would be really painful to the babies' just as if they can't work out what the statement 'if vasectomies where 100% painless and reversible' means.

I had no idea the word 'IF' was so difficult to understand.