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

Pascha/Boney Or you could both actually read what I've posted if responding to me instead of inventing stuff.

HTH

I don't need to read other twisted ideas in support of op's idea to know that I'm totally against any meddling with kids' reproductive organs and abilities.

The Diabolist doesn't know that I've read the thread. Your diabolical plots do not become more acceptable. The more I read, the more I can't believe my eyes. Your dictrines will stay fiction, regardless to how you try to sell them.

No sane parent will sterilise their child.

Try to read MY statement a 100 times then never come back on this thread.

Dione. This is not the first thread you have chosen to completely misrepresent me on. Please stop.

Pascha- if you read the thread you will discover that nobody supports the idea put forward in the OP.

Pacha you are hilarious

I don't need to read

Apparently not.

After all why let actual facts and the actual words people posted get in the way of a good old burst of self righteous hysteria and conclusion jumping. Here, have a

Fuck off. Go and stop your son's sperm if you want.

You are not touching mine, you witches.

I see it's moved on a bit from 'thought experiment'.

Pringle - If pregnancy was no longer deemed to be a big risk, wouldn't STIs increase?

I don't know. I remember pre HIV when most young men flatly refused to use condoms and no-one was telling them otherwise. It wasn't an enlightened sense of co responsibility which increased condom use it was fear of STIs.

What if the state wouldn't let you reverse the vasectomy
Yes that was why my modified option had no surgery and added a built in expiry date which would require someone to choose to 'stay infertile' rather than have to ask to be fertile. That said, we live in a world where the state does regulate and control access to contraception, child services and abortion. Is a vaccination/gene switch style fertility blocker different in meaningful way?

.

The thought of stopping the OP reproducing may be a good one though....

C8H10N4O2

I posted dictionary definitions in response to your question if you don't like them complain to the companies that write the dictionaries.

But its also a bit rich that someone is complaining about changes when the original premise has been changed.

as for HTH. patronising other posters doesn't help you get your point across.

Pacha no one is touching any sperm. It's a hypothesis,a thought experiment . People are discussing if it would work(ethically,legally,morally),how it would work(there have been people proposing alternative means like vaccines,pills etc that are available to both genders,age entered into discussion and so on )what it would prevent ,what are the pros and cons. It will never happen,but so what? It is a fun and interesting discussion...amongst witches

I wonder what it's like inside Pascha's head..........

The zebras from The lion guard "panic and run!Panic and run!"

Interesting idea, I like it.

rebel

How is my commenting on the irony of you telling another poster to read the thread, misrepresenting you Bert?

Pacha, you know nothing about my diabolical plots. Mwahahaha. And you clearly haven't read the thread.

Ha this has taken a brilliant turn

Brainwashing propaganda no less.

Ok OP, who's the leader behind this? Send them out

KellysZeros 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

Interested to hear the ways they found it positive. Is it possible to talk about their reasons without breaching their privacy?

Frozen sperm, I assume. I know someone who's done this too.

Boney Ok I'll assume you are not being goady.

You addressed post Sat 18-Feb-17 21:08:07 to me explicitly and you asked why should the boys be sterilised when they don't get pregnant.

Since I've not proposed or supported any notion of either sex being sterilised the question is meaningless to me.

Logical assumption to me was that either you had not read my posts, were intending to respond to another poster or were not clear on the difference between contraception (reversible, non surgical) and sterilisation (surgical, permanent).

You then posted dictionary definitions which helpfully evidenced the difference I was trying to get across whilst complaining that I hadn't answered your challenge on a point I hadn't actually made.
Hence my recommendation to go back and read my posts as you may find you are responding to the wrong poster or possibly misremembering what was written.

Sorry if i have missed this

But both boys and girls would need to have the procedure surely

Otherwise younger girl could still get pregnant by older man

But both boys and girls would need to have the procedure surely

I think this is where my original OP fell down. It was all fuzzy around gender responsibilty where fertility is concerned. Also perfect-world vs real-world procedures for temporarily delaying fertility.