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

DioneTheDiabolist

The OP also specified that "If a vasectomy was painless, 100% reversible".

As almost everything else in the OP's "thought experiment" has been changed why not this as well?

C8H10N4O2

Because with the noticeable exception of vaccinations, they are all choices that you make for yourself.

See threads that start my DC wants to become a vegetarian/vegan.
And how is that worse than girls taking hormones with significant side effects for many years?

Didn't say that it was, but the difference in that the girl/woman gets to make the choice.

Bert said she didn't know why the OP specified boys only. I gave the OP's reason for doing so. As she seems incapable of remembering the thread correctly or re-reading it.

What is the thought experiment that we are supposed to be considering now?

Dione

I have no idea what the experiment is, although it might be just to see who will keep posting on the thread,

What is the thought experiment that we are supposed to be considering now?

Can we give the whole fertility thing a swerve and just make it so you design a baby with some sort of baby architect, send the plans to the baby builders and collect it 9 months later? That would be a brilliant way of "opting in".

"he OP specified boys because getting tubes tied is major surgery whereas vasectomies aren't. It's in her 2nd post on this thread."
Ah, sorry, missed that. But as everyone agrees that invasive surgery for non medically required reasons is completely unacceptable it doesn't really matter anyway, surely?

My understanding is that we are considering the ethics of suspending fertility in infants by artificial means until the individual elects to reverse the process.

Dione Much as you make a light-hearted comment of it - what you describe is not only happening but only feasible for those that can afford that sort thing.

In theory the idea is good but in practice it risks being discriminative. I would prefer an option for all teenagers at start of puberty for temporary sterilisation but that risks increasing STD transmission. Basically all the answers suck, people suck, we all have to hope to get through those early horny years safely.

Bertrand In the context of this 'thought' experiment; how would you go about an individuals autonomy to 'elect' to reverse the process? Could said father renege on his commitment to the child because he felt under duress to opt for reversal or claim he was not of sound mind when he made the decision? Where would you draw the line? Given that in the real world many men walk away from children they happily conceived with no such bizarre process.

Because with the noticeable exception of vaccinations, they are all choices that you make for yourself.

I don't agree. My children did not choose their primary school, they were involved in their secondary school choice but ultimately it was our responsibility to make the best overall choice on the forms.

DC may choose to go vegan but that isn't what I said - I made choices for my children over food and diet from birth which they couldn't reverse with hindsight, even if they could change their diet as adults.

If I had the option to 'vaccinate' against fertility in a reversible way and save them the alternative powerful chemical options why would I not consider this just as I consider the many other choices we have to make for our children until they are of an age or ability to make their own?

sorry should be 'temporary reversible way'

Natsku, teen pregnancies have almost halved since 2007 (when FB became mainstream). So the answer is to keep them plugged into computers. If they don't physically meet up with opposite sex members, they can't produce pregnancies.

Hi There Everyone, we must admit to being dubious about this one early on but we're now finding this debate really interesting. Thanks for all your posts.

*C8H10N4O2"

So if you chose the wrong school you would make your child stick with it?
Or if your child wanted to become a vegetarian/vegan you would say no?

With enforced sterilisation, your child will have no choice till maturity and how that child is decided to be mature enough is yet to be confirmed given the changes to the OP.

And no one has yet to come up with a real justification of why this should happen at a time when the child has no voice to complain.

Boney

Its the other way around - if I choose to bring my child up as vegan they could as adults or adolescents change that but they wouldn't be able to reverse having spent the first dozen or so years of their life as a vegan and any possible negative effects.

If I chose the wrong school yes I'd consider moving them but that wouldn't change the effects of having spent X years there.

'Vaccinating' against fertility in this context has an expiry date so that no opt back in is needed. I'm not seeing this as potentially damaging in the way that choosing the wrong school might be (or even the wrong co parent potentially). I'm definitely not seeing it as problematic in the way that hormonal contraception or pregnancy can be for a young teen.

Vaccination isn't reversible and does not always expire so of the three real variants above perhaps vaccination is the one where I should have said 'no'.

The most ridiculous idea EVER. Are you out of your mind?

Brilliant Dione get them all on Facebook and no worries

C8H10N4O2

But you would be happy to force sterilisation on your children, ignoring any issues that it would cause

Where as not sterilising them would not cause any side effects.

Thought experiments are nothing new, they are a well used methodology for thinking through philosophical problems. One of their advantages is that they allow us to control a number of variables and therefore focus on others.

Some though experiments are criticized for being unrealistic but this misses the point because:
à. Even these may come about, e.g. a philosopher imagined a case where the lives of two twins where intertwined in such a way that saving the life of one involved taking an action that would bring about the death of the other, years before the actual twins in this horrible situation were born.
b. It doesn't really matter. Thought experiments are not about plausibility, they are about narrowing the focus of the discussion.

In this case the OP's thought experiments sets out the situation in a way that it is impossible to object to: the procedure is pain free, risk free, freely reversible and has the benefit of offering control over one's reproduction. There is nothing anyone can say against this as it has been set up and the objections raised on the thread only work if the premises are denied, e.g. the future freedom to reverse is questioned.

By the way the vast majority of medical decisions about children are done without their consent as children are, on the whole, incapable of consenting. They may lack capacity to make the decision and/or be unable to understand the particulars of the choices. Medical decisions are routinely made on behalf of children by their parents and doctors, these only become problematic when the decisions are not made in the child's best interests or when it is not clear what the child's best interests might be.

Well, FB, Skype, You Tube and games that they play with their friends while wearing magic headphones that let them talk to their friends in other places.

C8H10N4O2, we don't need to vaccinate children against fertility. They are children, they are not fertile until puberty. At that point, they still don't need a vaccination. Fertility only matters if they have PIV sex. Regardless of this happening at 12 or 20 years old, they still need to know about contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

But its not permanent, it expires after a period of time or could be reversed earlier. I initially suggested expiry at 20+ because that is about as early as most people actively choose to have a child.

The side effects of not being 'vaccinated' or whatever you want to call it would be pregnancy or powerful hormonal contraceptive so I disagree with the notion that either decision is side effect free.

Dione Well in the context of this thread I was going along with a scenario where I'd have to make that decision at birth or thereabouts on their behalf, ie something which could only be done at that age or not at all.

None of that would preclude the importance of sex and consent education for later when they do become sexually active or choose to have children.

I didn't choose to have DC until my 30s, so I would still have had to use powerful hormonal contraceptive. The vaccination may provide contraception, but safe sex needs to be practiced to prevent STIs, which can cause massive problems for fertility in the future. So even if you could vaccinate, you would still need them to use condoms. Do you think that the vaccination would make it more or less likely that teenage boys and girls would use condoms?