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

Thanks mommagee posted before rtwt did think it was hypothetical obviously, still thinking of a perfect utopia of these things is pretty pointless as it's impossible to ever achieve such a thing.

Could make a good book though .

Still of the train of thought even in the most perfect of circumstances I wouldn't mess with my dc body unnecessarily. If it ain't broke don't fix it and all that.

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.

No you don't. There was no mention of this option being imposed by the state. I said option, not state eugenics.

As parents we make numerous life impacting and irreversible decisions on behalf of our children - this one would at least be reversible and frees young women in particular from more invasive procedures and hormones with side effets when they are still learning how to deal with their own bodies and sexuality.

It would also free young men from risk of unplanned paternity but people tend to worry less about that in our culture, probably because we don't generally hold them responsible for their behaviour to the same degree.

As to the comment (from diff pp) further up thread about women having babies for benefits - I'd commend them to look at actual facts about how women 'benefit' from additional babies rather than rely on the more lurid tabloids. Ditto comments about 'third world having too many babies' which conveniently ignores the reality of life in a poor third world country.
Interestingly both of these groups show marked reduction in birth rate where girls are educated and taught to esteem themselves.

I've often thought that making contraception implants routine for 14 year old not a terrible idea...but I'd prefer good quality relationship education myself, focusing on healthy relationships, sexual responsibility etc , I've had to pay 15k to have my twins and the idea that my sons would have to pursued the government that they are 'right' to be fathers give me the chills

Third world countries birth rates come from a lack of education,culture,prejudice etc and in many cases rape.
As for women on benefits popping kids again better education and support would help with that. When the council people themselves tell you "sorry can't help you,but if you were to have another baby this and that would happen" you could see how someone desperate and/or uneducated would take it as a suggestion. It doesn't happen as often as the DM would like you to think though.

Since i already said i see no issues for both girls and boys to get treated in this utopic scenario, why not consider the alternative where the money spent in research,developing,creating,administering and reversing this treatment could be invested in better education and support so people make(and have access to) the right choices (like considering when,how and why to have a baby) due to their own thought process not because they were made to?

Nofunk i always joked about putting DD on the implant on her 16th birthday(idealistic thinking here). But the truth is that the implant or whatever only protects against pregnancy( and it might have serious side effects). It won't protect her emotionally or physically. It won't protect her from STD,abuse,coercion and the pressure society puts on girls. Only education and a healthy self esteem can if not protect her,at least help her to be able to cope.

As Rebel has said, it does not free young women from coercion, abuse or STIs, which can have a serious impact on the fertility of women and can require invasive procedures to correct or compensate for.

There was no mention of this option being imposed by the state. I said option, not state eugenics.

Either way what you're left with is an individual having their reproductive rights taken away from them without their knowledge or consent by a person or persons (parents or agents of the state) modifying their body.

C8H10N4O2

No you don't. There was no mention of this option being imposed by the state. I said option, not state eugenics.

Who do you think will set the standards that would have to be passed at "counselling" ?

Somebody would have to impose and control them, after all the point of this would be control.

Boney i think for argument's sake the counselling criteria was abandoned. Basically if it would be as easy as going in a pharmacy and saying I want x. I do wonder if there would be an age restriction though.

Had this thread been about forcibly sterilising baby girls, no one would have even considered it in a theoretical "mind experiment" manner.

RebelRogue

But by that argument the world that this takes place in is a heavenly utopia and as its such a wise and wonderful place the forced sterilisation of children wouldn't be needed as all the systems would be in place to prevent whatever the hell the point of the thread was happening.

"Had this thread been about forcibly sterilising baby girls, no one would have even considered it in a theoretical "mind experiment" manner."

I would. I think I did.

Sorry- mew t to say, we aren'5 discussing sterilization. Or neutering. But temporarily suspending fertility

Something that occurs to me is that the area where the state do exercise controls over who has children is adoption. And indeed the state does impose quite stringent requirements. I suppose the worry would be they'd approach this the same way. If no state involvement and it's reversible totally at will I still wouldn't do it to babies. I suspect it would have a high voluntary take up by young men though.

As the premise of the"though experiment" changes every couple of posts its hard to tell what is being discussed.

I do find it a fascinating discussion though.

Boney Who do you think will set the standards that would have to be passed at "counselling" ? Somebody would have to impose and control them, after all the point of this would be control.

Why? How would it be any different than any other decision like buying condoms, having your children vaccinated or choosing their schools and diet?

C8H10N4O2

Babies don't buy condoms adults do a choice is being made by not being made for.

schools and diets can be changed, either at the request of the parents or the child themselves.

Vaccinations are trickier but they have a proven record of preventing illness/diseases .

And given that the person who is being protected from pregnancy is female maybe their should be a forced "temporary sterilisation" of females. Or will that upset the utopian view?

there not their.

Not sure why the OP specified boys. The discussion could be had about either sex.

C8h well dunno,can a 13 yo buy condoms?
Schools...some(like religious schools,private etc) do have certain criteria that you need to meet. You can't just walk in and say i want my kid to go here. Even normal state school depend on intake,catchment area etc.
Diet - due to government and ofsted,schools can and do impose certain limits on home packed lunches for example,or what kids can drink in schools. Also what food is offered by the school.

Does anyone know what are the rates of accidental / unwanted pregnancy as opposed to fertility problems?

I feel like there's this huge emphasis on babies being A Bad Thing. I know three people who have had abortions, one each. On the other hand I know four people who have miscarried wanted pregnancies, three who have had IVF to have children and one couple who have remained childless after many attempts at IVF.

I know people don't necessarily talk much about abortions but nor do they talk about early miscarriages, so I'm only listing people close to me here.

From my perspective I'd be very scared of anything that could mess with my baby boy or girls fertility, because I don't see fertility as a sure thing. And being reassured it was 100% safe, still wouldn't get me over the hurdle of it being unnecessarily messing about with their future potential to have babies.

I'm with Bertrand in such a scenario I'd like said procedure,pill,vaccine whatever to be available to both genders.

The OP specified boys because getting tubes tied is major surgery whereas vasectomies aren't. It's in her 2nd post on this thread.

schools and diets can be changed, either at the request of the parents or the child themselves.

How is this different from you or your child changing your mind about temporary sterilisation?

And how is that worse than girls taking hormones with significant side effects for many years?

I don't see how this is any different from the many other decisions we make which are not reversible or are only partially reversible. Schools are not easily changed and whatever rules they impose about packed lunches is a small part of overall diet and eg would not prevent a parent from choosing a vegetarian or vegan diet for the child.
Vaccinations are not reversible albeit some are not permanent.