Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To wonder if boys should be vasectomised at birth?

499 replies

Dutch1e · 17/02/2017 20:30

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

OP posts:
Original poster
Dutch1e · 19/02/2017 19:59

But on reflection I stand by the original crux of the question, whether it's boys/girls or vasectomy/magic-potion....

Would you take away your child's breeding capabilities until they were an adult (18+) and make a deliberate decision to become fertile?

OP posts:
DioneTheDiabolist · 19/02/2017 20:30

No. I know the parents of children with cancer who have had their eggs/ sperm frozen so they have a chance of reproducing when they are adults.

I'll stick with boring DS to death with my talks on safe sex and hope he pays attention when/if the time comes. I will also be hoping that he has the option of a male contraceptive implant/pill by then.

BertrandRussell · 19/02/2017 20:33

I think it would be very difficult to argue that it would be a good idea if people couldn't reproduce until they were at least nominally adults.

However, the absolute unacceptability of any body changing procedure not medically necessary being carried out on someone unable to consent has to be paramount.

So, good idea though it might be, it is completely impossible.

PacificDogwod · 19/02/2017 20:36

Dutch1e, much as controlling fertility until it becomes a deliberate choice sounds really tempting (if there was a reliable, tpainfree, fully reversible etc etc method for both sexes), I think were it falls down (even as a thought experiment), that it would only have a sliver of a chance of working if there was some kind of authority/state controlled enforcement of the whole thing to avoid some parents buying in to the idea and others not.
That makes if totalitarian and, yes, fascist.

So, no, it's a no from me too.
And yes, I too bore my boys to tears about respect, relationships and consent (starting with never having forced them kiss Greatauntie Senga when they did not want to).
Most children learn about biology soon enough (although there are some shocking myths around, of course), but learning about relationships, responsibility, respect for others is a whole other ball game.

MuseumOfCurry · 19/02/2017 20:46

Dutch1e, much as controlling fertility until it becomes a deliberate choice sounds really tempting (if there was a reliable, tpainfree, fully reversible etc etc method for both sexes), I think were it falls down (even as a thought experiment), that it would only have a sliver of a chance of working if there was some kind of authority/state controlled enforcement of the whole thing to avoid some parents buying in to the idea and others not.

Good point.

C8H10N4O2 · 19/02/2017 21:11

I think were it falls down (even as a thought experiment), that it would only have a sliver of a chance of working if there was some kind of authority/state controlled enforcement of the whole thing to avoid some parents buying in to the idea and others not.

But doesn't that depend on the objective? If the object was to for a parent to be able to protect their child in this way on an individual level some would and some wouldn't - much as some choose vaccinations and other health related options whilst others don't. I don't think the OP was proposing it be done at societal level (BICBW). Surely it comes down to whether parents see it as protective more than an imposition (just as with vaccinations).

So for instance one scenario which would make me consider a baby timed 'vaccination' which allowed normal development but stopped viable gametes would be the horrendous side effects I and many other young women experienced with hormonal contraception. For some it was seriously life effecting (suicidally in one case). I was lucky in that my GP didn't tell me to run away as 'women have to put up with these things'. However that did leave me with less reliable and more intrusive methods and many anxious times on my erratic cycle at a life stage when I was less well placed to manage it.

The option to protect a child from that for say the first 20 years, but only if the option was taken up in babyhood is one I might just be tempted to consider as the problem runs rampant in the family. The elective reversal component should overcome the concern about need to freeze gametes for future use (not saying it would but theoretically it could).

Original poster
Dutch1e · 19/02/2017 21:36

I think the fear of state control is a bit of a red herring.

The same principle applies to any contraception. "Use X contraception or we will deny you the right to tax credits, state schools etc until you prove your worthiness to be a parent by our mysterious eugenic standards."

That doesn't happen now with existing contraceptives. But a similar argument is being used against this idea. I'm not seeing it.

OP posts:
C8H10N4O2 · 19/02/2017 21:39

Would you see ' thou shalt not get child benefit for the third child unless you can prove rape' as a step in that direction?

BoneyBackJefferson · 19/02/2017 21:50

C8H10N4O2

You might consider my points goady but this is just a reflection on you.

As for the sterilisation/contraception point, what is sterilisation if not an artificial method of preventing pregnancy.

You argue that that others can't change the "thought experiment" whilst happily modifying it

So for instance one scenario which would make me consider a baby timed 'vaccination' which allowed normal development but stopped viable gametes would be the horrendous side effects I and many other young women experienced with hormonal contraception.

and as this is a benefit for females and not for males. it in no way validates messing with a natural process.

The option to protect a child from that for say the first 20 years, but only if the option was taken up in babyhood is one I might just be tempted to consider as the problem runs rampant in the family.

How is this option protecting a child for 20 years?

Original poster
Dutch1e · 19/02/2017 21:51

Would you see ' thou shalt not get child benefit for the third child unless you can prove rape' as a step in that direction?

I suppose I would, which is why no such limitations are in place now. Is that what you meant?

OP posts:
PacificDogwod · 19/02/2017 21:51

No, adults opt to use contraception (including sterilisation) or not.
The decision is not made for them - unless they lack capacity and then it gets really complicated.

It would be great if we could all switch fertility on and off as it suited us, or if the biological risks of pregnancy/childbirth could be shared by both sexes, alas...

Wrt comparing it to vaccinations: look how het up some of the vaccination threads become.

C8H10N4O2 · 19/02/2017 22:01

I suppose I would, which is why no such limitations are in place now. Is that what you meant?

In the UK restricting child benefit to the first two children other than in cases of rape (and i think twins) is the plan unless it has been recently been cancelled (my kids all being past this stage I don't watch it as closely as I used to).

Original poster
Dutch1e · 19/02/2017 22:05

In the UK restricting child benefit to the first two children other than in cases of rape (and i think twins) is the plan unless it has been recently been cancelled (my kids all being past this stage I don't watch it as closely as I used to).*

Ok, I didn't know about that, thanks for the explanation

OP posts:
splendide · 19/02/2017 22:06

Do you still think it's a step in that direction?

C8H10N4O2 · 19/02/2017 22:09

Wrt comparing it to vaccinations: look how het up some of the vaccination threads become.

Yes which is kind of why I see the overlap - something which could be seen as protective or intrusive depending on the situation. I have also spent time with mothers in impoverished countries with no reliable healthcare/birth control who would have given their eye teeth to protect their daughters from immature pregnancies.

The key difference for me to vaccination against, say, smallpox is that the overwhelming evidence is one one direction.

As you say - if only the responsibility was shared.

Original poster
Dutch1e · 19/02/2017 22:10

Yes I do. State involvement in fertility is always going to be dubious.

My original question had nothing to do with state control though, if that's what you mean?

OP posts:
Original poster
Dutch1e · 19/02/2017 22:13

The key difference for me to vaccination against, say, smallpox is that the overwhelming evidence is one one direction

Are you saying there's evidence in favour of premature pregnancy?

OP posts:
C8H10N4O2 · 19/02/2017 22:14

Boney You can change the thought experiment as much as you like, again you have entirely misrepresented what I've actually posted to suit your position.

What you can't do is tell me I have to defend and answer for a position I've not taken expect me to take it remotely seriously.

splendide · 19/02/2017 22:18

I agree that the state should not interfere in fertility but I think it's a stretch to say that limiting benefits does that. I disagree with the cuts generally, including that one by the way.

C8H10N4O2 · 19/02/2017 22:18

Are you saying there's evidence in favour of premature pregnancy?

no sorry, two separate points I had in mind. The scientific evidence for most disease related vaccinations is already significantly in favour of having the vaccination although that doesn't stop many people speaking against them.

The women I was working with would have done pretty much anything to protect their children from very early age pregnancies in an environment where healthcare/contraception was largely a nice idea rather than a reality.

BantyCustards · 19/02/2017 22:19

WTAF?

That is all

C8H10N4O2 · 19/02/2017 22:21

My original question had nothing to do with state control though, if that's what you mean?

yes that is what I had assumed but wasn't sure of. I also read it as an option which parents may consider as having protective potential just as eg a vaccination, flouride drops or other health related treatment may rather than an immediate instrument of state control.

C8H10N4O2 · 19/02/2017 22:25

splendide yes I think we agree - my working assumption was that cutting of CB to the third child was simply playing to the daily mail women-who-have-babies-on-benefits gallery. Because obviously nobody ever experiences an unexpected change of circumstances after completing a family if they have more than two Hmm

Pacha11 · 19/02/2017 22:35

How exactly is a baby boy going to get someone pregnant? In all seriousness, you are still going... But you have no idea whatsoevet what you are on about!

BoneyBackJefferson · 19/02/2017 22:36

C8H10N4O2

Not misrepresenting you at all.

Dutch

the state control was brought in a someone would have to set some sort of standard for the counselling. which was the reason that posters insisted that counselling was dropped from the original "thought experiment"