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

A close male family member has for medical reasons had to opt in to fertility and they told me they and their partners have found it to be positive in many ways

C8H10N4O2
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.

yet both of these (at the moment) affect females. So why should the males be sterilised?

Out of interest, I remember seeing on some programme a while ago that there was a development in reversible sterilization involving magnets that could be switched on and off from outside. Did I dream that , or was it just blue sky research thinking?

Dionne In your situation would would logically opt in to the extension period or switch to another form if you preferred (and of course other contraceptives are regulated and controlled as well).

Do you think that the vaccination would make it more or less likely that teenage boys and girls would use condoms?

I think it would be useful to be able to separate out the STI/contraception issues rather than have them emeshed.
I don't see why it would reduce condom use as the rise in this was largely driven by STI fear rather than pregnancy fear (particularly amongst boys).

So why should the males be sterilised?

Who is being sterilised? Contraception and fertility blocks != sterilisation

C8H10N4O2

Another term that it is know by is "chemical castration".
But you still haven't answered the question.

Since when has contraception- even long term contraception been the same as sterilization or chemical castration? Or even neutering, as somebody said down thread.

What is the point of contraception when their is no sperm or egg being produced?

"What is the point of contraception when their is no sperm or egg being produced?"

Isn't that one of the things we're talking about? What is the point of any prophylactic - the person may never come into contact with whatever it is they are being protected against?

There are people who are in favour of infant circumcision because they think it protects against AIDS and penile cancer- what is the point of doing that before any possiblility of the person being sexually active?

There is not a fucking chance in hell that people are going to let their children be sterilised!

Why are you still discusding this outrageous topic? Is this some sort of planned social engineering?

Well, forget about it!

Just NO.

And if you can't see why, you are missing the whole point life. Which is to procreate.

There are people who are in favour of infant circumcision because they think it protects against AIDS and penile cancer- what is the point of doing that before any possiblility of the person being sexually active?

I can't answer that as it is my view on circumcision and It is also my view on this.

The whole point of life is not necessarily to procreate. At least not for some people. Plus the hypothetical question is not about stopping procreation,just delaying it .

"And if you can't see why, you are missing the whole point life. Which is to procreate."

Blimey,is it? Not to me it isn''t

But even if it was, this wouldn't get in the way of that.

The whole point in life is to procteate!

Utter bollocks

Sorry to burst your bubble, but yes, the whole point of life is to procreate. Don't flatter yourselves that your purpose is higher, haha. This is naive. Ok, if it makes your life more bearable, you are allowed to keep the scales.

But most people would never, ever, EVER risk their child's reproductive organs, no matter how it is dressed.

Pacha11/Boney - you seriously do not understand the difference between sterilisation and contraception?

Chemical name, please don't patronise us. I totally understand what a vasectomy means.

To quote NHS:

Vasectomy (male sterilisation).

OK?

If you repeat your lies a 100 times, they will not become true.

Who is paying for this ourageous propaganda? People will not stand for this experiment. Try to lay your hands on our most precious and you are gone in a flash. Pass this on to your supervisors.

C8H10N4O2

sterilisation definition

surgery to make a person or animal unable to produce offspring.

contraception definition

the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy

Another quote from here:
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/contraception-guide/Pages/vasectomy-male-sterilisation.aspx

Male sterilisation is considered permanent – once it's done, you don't have to think about contraception again.

If anyone is stupid enough to subject their young son to this, then they probably deserve to see the demise if their genes. But I will never wish that upon anyone. On the opposite - I will defend everyone's right to have an offspring to my dying breath.

What an awful idea OP! Totally against a person's human rights too!

Let's say in this hypothetical scenario, there are no medical side effects and 100% fertility once the procedure is reversed.

What if men reversed the procedure and didn't tell their partners, who didn't want children? At present, the risk of an unseen contraceptive rests with the person who has to physically carry the child. You can see a condom. You can't see a vasectomy or indeed as we are discussing here, a reversal of one.

If pregnancy was no longer deemed to be a big risk, wouldn't STIs increase? What if we had a HIV/AIDS crisis on our hands as a result?

What if the state wouldn't let you reverse the vasectomy unless you met certain criteria? We would potentially wipe out poor people, disabled people, etc... Maybe even foreign people. What would be the medial and social result of having a population with no diversity in it?

If fertility could be stopped, surely the next step would be for America to roll out the programme to the third world and effectively stop them all from reproducing under the guise of charity? Wouldn't that just result in lots of ethnicities being wiped out?

I think the idea (ignoring the medical impossibility) would result in the West taking a morally dubious direction and probably result in us humans wiping ourselves out.

It would be nice to avoid accidental pregnancies. Don't think this idea is the solution though!

Calm down, Pascha- and maybe read more of the thread than the title?

Oh, please, don't tell me to calm down. It's very clear what you are doing - brainwashing. You should apologise to all concerned and delete your outrageous 'idea'. It has no place whatsoever for discussion.

maybe read more of the thread than the title.

Oh the irony.

This idea is so sick and twisted, it's unimaginable. It's against the most fundamental thing in life. It's gross, malicious and painfull. It's all the world's dictators rolled into one, and then some.

I'll be suprised if the supporters of it have any kids.