To wonder if boys should be vasectomised at birth?

[Dutch1e]

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

And the thing is, most people don't really mind about the idea of criminals or drug addicts or learning disabled people being sterilised, because most people think that doesn't apply to them, and most people think that crime, drug addiction and severe learning disabilities are incompatible with being able to give children the kind of basic care that they need. And probably there is some truth in that, but that's not the point, because there's always a line. Can a drug addict never become clean and be a good parent later on? Can a person who has committed a crime never be redeemed? What level of learning disability is problematic in terms of child rearing? How do you measure that? What about mental health problems? What about people who have had previous children removed by the state?

It is not a good recruitment tactic for the feminist cause.

I hear you Derxa. Sometimes I wonder if some of our FWR regulars are MRAs whose goal is to put women off feminism.

"Sometimes I wonder if some of our FWR regulars are MRAs whose goal is to put women off feminism."

Can you say some more about this?

I guess, on a thought experiment level, boys could be encouraged to choose to have a (100% reversible in this scenario) vasectomy when they reach puberty. The same way some girls choose to go on the pill in puberty, just in case.

And name names! You know you want to.

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

Starting a thread "should we vasectomise babies" doesn't exactly give the impression of condemnation of such an idea. Nor do your own initial posts of "hey, why is everyone so against this idea?" Claiming that you've been against it all along merely indicates that you were baiting people so that you could condescendingly tell them they don't understand when they quite rightly point out what an unethical idea the OP is espousing. Maybe you get your kicks out of manufacturing a situation in which you can feel intellectually superior, I dunno.

Technically, if we were all born unable to have babies, and we needed a certain treatment or pill before we could pro-create, that would be ideal, as it would stop unwanted pregnancies...
It might stop the unplanned pregnancy at 16 but not the unplanned 3rd pregnancy after they decided 2 was plenty. Or when they break up and he's enjoying some fwb with a contraception fail.

...the starving millions across the globe having more and more children, (even though they should stop having so many because they can't feed themselves!)
Except when man asks dr to reverse ot this will apparently be allowed without judgement so who is to stop him from having a ton of babies? Or are we adding in a forced vasectomy after two?

...and women having baby after baby to stay on welfare (and it does happen, let's not pretend otherwise.)
How? Back to forced vasectomy after two? Hes married, had it reversed. They cab 1 or 50. He can leave her and sleep with a whole plethora of women who are all fertile because we only take away the fertility rights of men.

Or are we slipping on a little note to not allow reversals in more than 40% of the population in Africa, only 60% of the population in poor economic areas of western countries but the wholepf the Home Counties on first request?

To modify the original approach.
OK. Let's change the argument slightly from vacectomise

but then you have changed the whole perspective of this so well thought out experiment

Sorry, slarti, just checked back. I didn't say anything of the sort.

Fight fair or don't fight. Up to you.

"but then you have changed the whole perspective of this so well thought out experiment"

No- because the thought experiment is about whether or not opt in fertility might be a good idea. Not whether or not it's OK to hurt babies. Which everyone thinks is unacceptable. Even feminists.

If we take vacetomise to mean "perform a vasectomy as they are now carried out on new born baby boys" then there is obviously no answer but "Absolurely not". End of debate. The premise had to be modified. People first suggested taking as read that the procedure would be 100% safe, painless and reversible, but the "vasectomy" word got in the way. That's when I suggested some sort of non invasive, completely benign process. In order to discuss the fertility point. Which is, surely, what the thread is about.

but the premise is the "If a vasectomy was painless, 100% reversible" etc.

Part of the issue is that it is invasive. The other issues if we change it remain the same.

one of which is
How could you/we prevent some group of people from hijacking the process for there own gain.

Another is by what ethical right can you take away someone's biological makeup?

Bert, your exact words in your first post on this thread were "Why not?"

Let us say there is an option simply to switch on a gene which blocks fertility in both sexes for the first 20-25 years of life. It only works for that period so no opt in is needed to regain fertility - instead the young adult would have to opt to stay infertile. The gene has no other effects. This then frees adolescents and young adults from the need for early and interventionist methods for contraceptive purposes and to some extent from mistakes. Would you then still see it as a problem?

What you've got there is a situation where the state controls reproduction. Worse, it does so by transgressing bodily autonomy and assuming sovereignty over the genes of its citizens.

Using phrases like "opt in" presents an illusion of choice when opting out is enforced at birth. Such a person has no choice over what has happened to their body and their reproductive faculty - it is controlled by someone else and disguised as "freedom from mistakes" by those who deign to know what's best for us.

Remove the sterilisation aspect from this "thought experiment" and simply imagine the state legislating against women getting pregnant before the age of 25. No operations (painless or otherwise), no magic drops of infertility medicine, just a law that made it illegal. Is that sort of enforced regulation of reproduction ok?

BertrandRussell

And name names!

Bertrand I have a lot of time for you and usually like your posts but you introduced that spurious straw man argument (I actually hate that phrase but it fits here) that posters were outraged at the suggestion of curbing male fertility. No that is not what they were outraged by.

You then added to that with your "what about the girlz" point (I'm paraphrasing before you say you never said that).

Then you and one of the Spartacuses (Spartaci? Sorry but they are as indistinguishable as the User1234s) had a little congratulatory back slapping about how clever you are compared to other posters.

How could you/we prevent some group of people from hijacking the process for there own gain.

Remove the part about needing "counselling" and let adults regain their fertility on demand, and that would take care of that surely. Would be no different than a person now requesting a coil to be taken out, or a vasectomy reversed. No-one says "I don't thinks so, you are the wrong sort".

Another is by what ethical right can you take away someone's biological makeup?

Why would this be fundamentally different than vaccination or chemical castration? Although you may disagree with either of course.

And anyway, I would say that assuming even temporary control of another person's fertility is eugenics- the decision is taken out of their hands, even if it can be handed back.

Doesn't this make coils eugenics?

JAPAB

Those that are chemically castrated do so voluntarily, and vaccination is irreversible.

I also suspect that posters have not used chemical castration for the same reasons that they are sanitising the sterilisation process.

Removing the "counselling" section of the "opt in" doesn't necessarily remove the ability for it to be controlled.

There are already pharmacists and doctors that refuse to give the MAP for spurious reasons.

No-one says "I don't thinks so, you are the wrong sort". That could never be the case. People with learning difficulties have had their babies taken from them because they were the 'wrong sort' of parent.

There would also be no religion in this alternative society because I'm sure the Pope would have something to say about it.

But surely we can technically opt into fertility when we are ready now? There are contraceptive options available that will allow you to do that. What stops it happening is human error, ignorance or people wanting to have babies when they are not ready or capable. To take away all of those variables, you would need someone other than the individual to decide on fertility. If you do that, you go into the area of state control of fertility, which then leads to the same issue of who decides when someone is ready to start a family, and who decides when that fertility should be switched off? Everyone is always up in arms when the suggestion of cutting child benefit for over 2 children is mooted, or cutting tax credits for over 2 children, surely that is a more palatable way of controlling population? Or does population control only apply to the developing world? A western child uses 10 x the resources just by living, in terms of water, growing food, clothes, life expectancy etc than a child in the developing world, so to follow that argument, people who have 5 children here are causing more harm to the planet that someone in the developing world who has 15 children, many of whom will never have a life expectancy anywhere near that of the Western childs 80 + years.

Those that are chemically castrated do so voluntarily, and vaccination is irreversible.

The latter done to children without their adult consent, and this most agree is OK. And this fertility "vaccination" would be reversible.

Removing the "counselling" section of the "opt in" doesn't necessarily remove the ability for it to be controlled.

Not if it was available on demand. You can always argue that some eugenical group may get into power in order to make it so only those deemed fit get OKed for reversal. But if that happens they'll likely do what they want regardless.

There are already pharmacists and doctors that refuse to give the MAP for spurious reasons.

Well, they have strong ethical objections to contraception and abortion true, and do not want to personally facilitate either. Not sure where this leads us.

If the aim of this would be to stop unwanted pregnancies,then it should be available to both sexes and it misses out completely the fact that unwanted pregnancies with devastating effects don't only happen until someone is an adult. They happen at 20,30,40.

Eh? it's just wrong.

Can't imagine it would work considering a baby boy isn't developed, don't know anything much about biology but I imagine it wouldn't be reversible it's too complex.

Clnz apparently you're missing the point. OP's "thought experiment" is set in a world where everything is possible, even neutering a baby with absolutely no risk, pain, discomfort etc and no risk of corrupt governments corrupting the system to control population of undesirables. Given the apparent utopia of OP's world I'm amazd there's any unplanned pregnancy anyway

Late to the thread but how ridiculous even as a thought.

When are people going to realise that humans are fine as we are in our natural state? You cannot clean up the human race. We are all just small fish in a giant ocean, we live, we die, the world keeps on turning.

There will always be good people and not so good, there will always be power imbalances, inequality and irresponsibility. The human race will keep on breeding no matter what because that's nature.

I think most western countries manage kind of ok. By having healthcare in place, education, access to contraception, some level of democracy, laws, freedom, public services and so on. We are on the whole reasonably civilised.

No forced sterilisation, death penalty or anything else will change the human race.

We just carry on and try to help each generation to make the best choices and help the most in need.

JAPAB

And this fertility "vaccination" would be reversible.

but its only "reversible" if we ignore that vasectomies have less chance of being reversible over time, and we move from vasectomies to the sanitised "vaccination".

You can always argue that some eugenical group may get into power in order to make it so only those deemed fit get OKed for reversal.

In the same way that you can argue for forced sterilisation with no issues on reversal. The point has to be as valid as the other.

Well, they have strong ethical objections to contraception and abortion true, and do not want to personally facilitate either. Not sure where this leads us

So do their strong ethical reasons really have any validity? Or should we take it in to account as it nullifies the "on demand" point that people are making.