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

I assumed that your idea of counselling sessions were state control and that if a threshold wasn't reached during the sessions it wouldn't be reversed.

Fair point. Is there a similar threshold when a woman asks for an abortion in countries where it's not available on demand and needs a series of appointments? (Honestly asking as it's the closest situation is can think of in the real world)

It's also amazing how up in arms people get about men's reproductive rights. I hope you would all feel the same about protecting women's.

Onion raises a good point about state control though. I'd be way more worried about that side of things than anything else. I wouldn't trust any Government to be able to assess suitability for parenthood effectively.

According to Robert Winston humans are the least fertile of all the species. Do you want us to be even less fertile?

I still don't understand why you didn't muse about the female equivalent of sterilisation for your "what if". You say it's because the female procedure is major surgery but surely that's irrelevant in a what if scenario?

I would argue sterilisation should be enforced upon little girls so when they grow up they can't trap the poor menz into parenthood.

Considering Mobile phone radiation is rumoured to affect male fetility i wouldn't be suprised if in 60 years Blah blah blah.... and so on.

BoneyBackJefferson Totally fair point, after reading back I realise that was not implicit and more my interpretation.

I think you might also still have a 'problem' with men having a string of children who they abandon - once the first one is unlocked they are good to go however many subsequent times exactly like today.
In fact, I strongly suspect that if women had a general expectation that men are infertile there would be loads more 'oops' pregnancies with a partner other than the one who carried the first child, because the man might not bother mentioning it was essential to wear a condom/it is easier to forget in the heat of the moment etc

Well my fertility pills /surgery reversal is available to anyone who can consent to it.

Except . . . if I was doing the prescription, I wouldn't prescribe for a drug addicted mother who is still taking drugs or someone who has been jailed for child sexual abuse.

Where do I go from here? Who doesn't get the pills? Generally I think they should be given out non judgementally with informed consent. But there are always grey areas!

Yes, but if it's a surgical/medical procedure to be reversed, presumably you can't do it at home whenever you feel like it.

Which means that even if such a scheme were set up without any intentions of making people ask for permission, 25-30 years after that baby who you've just sterilised is born, someone totally different is in power. And they have decided that it's not fair to allow parents with inheritable disabilities to procreate because this has a chance of passing on the disability to the child.

Or it is decided that children can't possibly be raised on less than a certain income, and parents without this income are not allowed to reverse theirs. Or perhaps the person in power is a fanatic of a certain religion and only people who follow this religion are allowed to procreate.

Or perhaps the health system has just deteriorated to the point that it's difficult to find a provider, meaning that not many people can have their procedure reversed. Or healthcare is so expensive that it's not available to everyone. Or there's been a massive war/apocalypse and we don't even have the facilities any more - and everyone under a certain age is effectively infertile.

You can't plan these kinds of things without being aware of the worst case scenario in the future. And you can't expect everything to stay the same for such a long period of time.

If we are talking about a reversible sterility procedure I think it would be ok for both men and women if (and it's a big if):

It would be painless
It would be entirely up to the individual to reverse it i.e. Not state controlled.
There would be no side effects.

I think we should concentrate less on making humans less fertile and more on saving certain animals from becoming extinct which is the real worry in my opinion.

No they haven't, they have just said totally reversable, and if we ignore the negatives what is the point of the discussion?

Actually I agree with this, you're right. I guess I said 'totally reversible' to avoid the discussions of vasectomy crapness, thinking more that "opting into fertility" idea

The other issue is if it was available to us it would be available in other counties to where it would undoubtedly be abused

Tempus I may be wrong but I guess OP suggested boys as the reality is men are much more able to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy than a woman. The consequenses of unprotected sex are not the same.

Or even other countries

25-30 years after that baby who you've just sterilised is born, someone totally different is in power. And they have decided that it's not fair to allow parents with inheritable disabilities to procreate

Scarily plausible.

Back-street vasectomy reversals?

If there are, in this scenario, none of the RL complications of vasectomy (which have been mentioned in an earlier post) actually exist, then there can be the same airbrushing out of the risks of female sterilisation.

So yes, both sexes or neither.

25-30 years after that baby who you've just sterilised is born, someone totally different is in power. And they have decided that it's not fair to allow parents with inheritable disabilities to procreate

THIS!

in fact have a whole packet!

even if it were totally reversible.
even if it had no side effects

The ethical ramifications of messing around with someone's body without their consent or the state taking the automatic right to consent (whether male or female) is a very slippery slope.

What the actual fuck did I just read? No surgery is without risk and I know several men who have had their man tubes tied then wanted kids later and been unable to have it reversed.

Oh fuck it. Just do the same for girls as well then? Will you get "breeding vouchers" then when you want kids? Will there be a "criteria" you have to meet to get enough points to get your breeding voucher?

Fucking hell....

How long would it be before people living on benefits weren't allowed a reversal? Not long with the way the world is going.

Tweasels if anything then surely it should be the woman whohas to opt into parenthood as it's she who has to go through the birth and is left in the vulnerable position?

The whole idea is ludicrous anyway.

I've always thought that a girls reproductive stuff should come separately and you just get it installed when you're ready to procreate. Putting up with a period monthly since age 11 and not having children until mid-30's seems a very inefficient system.

Troll!