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

Casschops the decision is about reversing the vasectomy when they're grown and ready to be fertile

JustAnotherSilentOldNumber I've replied a lot on this thread. Missed the posts about learning disabilities though, were they similar to the post about Cerebral Palsy?

were they similar to the post about Cerebral Palsy?

No they weren't.

and ready to be fertile

You realise children aren't actually fertile until puberty right?

PacificDogwod
If you replaced the words 'baby boys' with 'adult men' in your OP, I might agree with you.

So what would you do if one of your 4 boys said "no"? would you force them to go through with a 'normalised' vasectomy?

In an ideal world humans wouldnt reproduce at all but we dont live in an ideal world!

JustAnotherSilentOldNumber OP has tried to crack on with the discussion but is being met with a wall of "troll" "ODFOD" "piss off."
Granted OP's style of posting was very 6th form college critical thinking exercise - there is a valid discussion to be had in this idea.
I patently disagree with it but I don't see why this should be seen as goady - at least there are not premature twins and over-bearing MILs.

Boney, no, I would not.
I thought I made that clear.

If an entirely risk-free, pain-free, reliably reversible form of vasectomy was available, I am quite sure a lot more men would voluntarily consent to it. Or would frigging line up, begging to have it done.
I suppose the same might be true for women though...

IMO the only 'fair' way about contraception/conception would be if it could be entirely shared between the sexes. Biology does not seem to agree.

I don't understand why 'at birth' is suggested.... boys don't actually produce semen until 11 or 12, even if they can ejeculate before that.

I read this thinking how interesting!

Ma pill doesn't work for me. Three pregnancies proved that. I'd have liked the opt in method. I'd have had to consider more carefully and probably wouldn't have had kids yet. But I'd not have been diagnosed with bipolar without them either so swings and roundabouts...

Like a PP I'm struggling to see the eugenics argument here. I gather that there will be a need for (qualified) professionals to reverse the vasectomy but I don't see why those professionals would collude to refuse to carry out the procedure on those that they or society deem as 'lesser' - that could conceivably happen in our current society today.

PacificDogwod

(I know that it is not your point but)
I think that is why the OP chose babies, they are unable to vocalise their non consent, so parents 'should do' what is 'best' for them.

IMO
Even if a pain free, fully reversible, no side affects form of contraception were available, it should only be given to those that are able to consent of their own free will (whether male or female). Anything else has a massive chance of resulting in state sponsored eugenics.

Yep, I agree with you there, Boney.

I suspect the OP was borne out of frustration at the sheer unfairness of ALL reproductive risks being squarely landed at the feet of the female of the species and I do get that.

6th form college critical thinking exercise

Bit rough. At least the others had the guts to just call me a cunt

Still interested to hear why you disagree, it's the second time you've said that and I reckon you've got a stonking good argument up your sleeve

Plus it carries with it the assumption that people aren't capable of making their own contraceptive / pregnancy choices which is just infantalising

So count the amount of abortions/unwanted pregnancies/young men with children with different women very young because they 'don't do condoms' etc. I could go on, but the point is that some people, men and women, are capable of of using contraception to prevent a pregnancy (ONS, for example) but don't. Yes, there are two people involved in creating a pregnancy, both of whom may not have discussed or brought or used contraception. The most common reason accidental teenage pregnancies occurred (and I'm going back a few years here) was because the girl (sexist!!) was too shy to raise the issue of condoms with the boy.

I see the OP's point, but it's a democracy, we don't have people being dragged to abortion clinics as was seen until quite recently in China.

Someone mentioned having a disorder and should they be allowed children. It's a personal choice, isn't it? I read about a woman who'd decided to have children with her husband who had dwarfism and the child inherited this. She was very upset about people bullying him and said she'd had him because she wanted someone to love. Is this selfish/wrong or would the OP's fantasy idea have kicked in here and the woman's DH wouldn't have been signs off for a reversal? Dangerous territory.

VladmirsPoutine

After Brexit there where several threads on here about how people should have to pass a test to be able to vote as they hadn't voted the 'right way' (they were quite rightly put down).

China used to have a one child one couple policy.

from fox news (best I can do)
here

Would you really advocate giving up autonomy over your body.

You´re writing dystopian fiction and had this great idea for a book, and decided to run it through MN, right?

As a sci-fi dystopian story, I think it's an amazing idea. I can think of so many interesting conflicts and plot twists and characters in this story...

In real life... well, not so much ;)

Would you really advocate giving up autonomy over your body.

I think this might be the crux of it. We're at the mercy of our fertility - contraceptives fail or are ignored in the heat of the moment. Would a reversible pre-sterilisation give you more autonomy than it takes away?

And autonomy over our bodies is a bit of an illusion anyway. Even the most well-loved kids don't have real bodily autonomy

Eh? Where are you going with this now?

The men I know who have fathered numeroys children and walked away, dipping in and out of their DC's lives as they wish, would have had the reversal in their teens and still had those children. They are quite proud of fathering numerous children that they don't support.

I can see no merit whatever in sterilising baby boys.

in theory i think its a great idea... ive seen the pain unplanned pregnancies can cause.
Grandparents having to pick up the pieces (and the bill) - the emotional toll it takes on the young parents. A close family member committed suicide as a result of the pressure!
Then there is the cases where the young couple split up, and the young, immature girl uses the baby as a weapon to hurt the father.
I've seen it all... we would have alot less social problems if we didnt have unplanned pregnancies.
if you steralise young girls or boys at birth, yes you are taking away some of their rights... however you are also protecting the rights of future babies, to be born into loving, stable, supportive environments.

All that said, its a great idea in theory, but the practicalities and what it could lead to is actually quite frightening!

For discussion sake..

I assume you mention babies(that can't actually reproduce) and an older child might object and rightly so. But doesn't that sit wrong with you? Doing a procedure that is completely unnecessary for years to come,because they can't object, "won't remember" etc.?
Who would do the reversal? The NHS? What if the powers that be decided it shouldn't be an NHS procedure anymore? Or that it would require a fee? Or unavailable if there is a history of drug or alcohol abuse? Or that you need to meet x,y,z criteria in order to have it? All these things depend on the people in power. You ever having grandchildren would depend on the government of the day..not you,your son,or his wife/girlfriend.
And then there's the social side... yes there would be no unwanted pregnancies,but what about STD's? Odds are use of condoms would decline if there was no fear of pregnancy. As would birth rates rightly or wrongly.
I also don't see how something like this would prevent abuse.

No way would i of put my ds through that when he was born thats just fucking cruel

Overreaction... erm NO, you do realise that your stopping natural puberty!!!

Oh and even if it was the safest,quickest,best surgery ever,would you make it law?opt in? There would still be parents that would refuse. Force them legally to do it? Demand proof of vasectomy before applying to school? Court orders? Ss involvement?

I love a good what if. I often wonder when I'm considering putting a nappy on my dog what it would be like if human women had 'seasons'. If we could only get pregnant one month a year.

It would make schooling interesting!

Is the OP a joke?