Vasectomies for all

[LadySparrow]

Sorry if this isn’t the right chat, I’m in the Bluestocking and various others if checks needed.

Just back from a night out with several pissed off women -as we should be- so possibly not at my most coherent.

A question was raised - if vasectomies are 90% reversible, why are young men not required to have vasectomies in order to have sex. As opposed to the majority view that women should be on hormonal contraceptives.

The majority of contraception “fails” seems to be from the male POV and perspective that if women are on the pill/implant/injection and it fails then they are solely liable.

In which case why are men not given a vasectomy option at a young age with the possibility of a reversal if they change their minds.

Thoughts? There were many in my group tonight, curious to see what people think.

Why are you getting so pissy about my replies to you?

You wanted a thought experiment, yet seem really upset that someone has a different view.

I'd take it further and force men to deposit large quantities of sperm into their own personal banks to start future families and then actually force the vasectomy. Would fix so many problems.

This was your original premise, so yes forced "milking".
And the personal Sperm bank accounts would mean that men would have total control over who had the children.

Could there be a public (maybe with a password) data base they could opt into having their name then you could check they'd had it?

Really though, I'm not sure I'd trust a man who was so incompetent at managing contraception that he needed to get a vasectomy in order to prevent impregnating his partners, with the hopes of a reversal or the difficulties of IUI/IVF later. Red flag.

@OtterlyAstounding I've found myself pregnant twice on the pill (with perfect use) and that has a far better reliability rate than condoms!
I miscarried both of these pregnancies which was sort of a "blessing on disguise" as it took away difficult decisions from my husband and I, but the reality is vaesectomy is far more reliable. Hence why my husband has had one.

@LadySparrowthe problem is vasectomies aren’t truly reversible in the reproductive sense. It’s actually quite complicated. A friend of mine is trying to have a baby at the moment with a man who had a vasectomy and they’ve been advised to do IVF with a surgical sperm extraction as more likely to yield better quality sperm than a reversal (and even then warned sperm is likely to be low quality as a result of the vasectomy). Apparently few people truly understand it’s not fully reversible in the reproductive / fertility sense

And if they don't opt in?

Would registration on that database also include regular STI test results?

Much higher chance of autism in babies from frozen sperm/frozen eggs/IVF

Really?? I'll have to read into that. Another good reason to ban IVF if it's true (but that also ends my compulsory vasectomy / no-more-risk-of-pregnancy dream 😔)

Where did I get "pissy"? Asking for a friend who gives a shit 😏

Yes, a vasectomy (when chosen) is the most reliable method, and I think more men should be encouraged to get one when a couple decides their family is complete/they don't want kids - the country I live in, I think has the highest rates of vasectomies in the world.

(Although I've spent over 12 years without a single accidental pregnancy after conceiving within a couple of months with both children - so we are/were pretty fertile - purely using the pull-out method. If a man is capable of being responsible and not putting his semen in his partner unless he intends to impregnate her, generally the risks are fairly low.)

But it's obviously hugely disproportionate to suggest that in order to avoid occasional accidents that can be sorted with the morning after pill, or accidental pregnancies that might be ended through abortion, or welcomed, all men should be forced to bank sperm and undergo a surgery against their will, so that when they do want to conceive, their partner will have to go through more invasive and expensive methods that require an outside party's cooperation.

@OtterlyAstounding The pull-out method isn't particularly reliable.

In fact the NHS don't recommend it at all as a recognised form of contraception:

Withdrawing the penis before ejaculation (sometimes called the withdrawal method) is not an effective way to avoid pregnancy and is not recommended. (NHS).

The pull-out method (coitus interruptus) is <a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&rct=j&url=www.contraceptionchoices.org/FSRH/ContraceptionChoices/Contraception-Methods/Withdrawal.aspx%23:~:text%3D96%2525%2520effective%2520with%2520perfect,culturally%252Freligiously%2520acceptable.&ved=2ahUKEwjTysHy2NOXAxVWh<u>0HHfh4JzAQy</u>kOegoIAggACAAIBxAC&opi=89978449&cd&psig=AOvVaw144htbjoCVFmNEXpxu0gdT&ust=1792967050774000" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">about 80% to 78% effective with typical use, meaning roughly 20 to 22 out of 100 people will get pregnant over the course of a year.

Yes, I know all the stats, particularly regarding typical use, but with perfect use the fail rate is 4%, compared to condoms at 2% (and 13 - 18% failure rate with typical use), and it's a lot easier to ensure perfect use of withdrawal as it relies entirely on the man's actions, and there's no possibility of a faulty condom (outside of your control).

Again, if a man is responsible enough not to put his sperm in a woman (which includes making sure that he's cleared the urethra between rounds of sex so there's no sperm in any 'precum'), then the chances of conception are pretty low.

If one is willing to get an abortion or continue a pregnancy should one accidentally conceive, and has a partner who has the respect and self-control to withdraw each time, it's not a bad method - although obviously, not for everyone. I know quite a few people who use it, and tbh, they haven't had any more accidental pregnancies than people on the pill, or using condoms. After all, as you said, you had two accidental pregnancies on the pill - that's not exactly a great advertisement for it!

Anyway, all this doesn't change the fact that forced vasectomies would be a disproportionate human rights violation.

Oh I agree with the part about it being violation of human rights to enforce vaesectomies on men.
But on another note - I do think far men should opt for the vaesectomy route once their family is complete. After all, what's a reasonable excuse not to?

Absolutely agree! It's by far the best form of contraception if you're sure you don't want any(more) children.

It always frustrates me to see women posting on here whose DHs/DPs say they never want any more children but don't get a vasectomy, making things difficult for their partners - whether it means they keep holding out hope for another child, have to deal with hormonal contraception, or bearing the burden of accidental pregnancies (especially if they want to continue the pregnancy, and their DH doesn't). It's so irresponsible.

@OtterlyAstounding Apparently some believe it makes them "less of a man." How pathetic!

One of the most bonkers suggestions I've heard in a long time.

Surely if thats how you feel you'd take the view that sex should be kept for the confines of marriage with the legal protection it offers.

I've certainly never heard that. And a quick Google says its not true.

IVF can be wonderful for couples. I certainly wouldn't like to see it banned, for mosts couples not sure about donor eggs / sperm

IVF is selfish when there are children who need adopting and given the ethical implications too around all the fertilised eggs. It definitely shouldn't be paid for by tax payers either.

By that logic nobody should try for a child they should just go and adopt.

Well sorry that had already been ruled out for my family.
My 3 remaining embryos went to clinical research.
What unethical about that?

I also had 3 better quality than them fail so chances are they'd have failed too. Along with one natural early loss and one IUI early loss.

Why shouldn't the NHS pay for treatment for women? Women pay taxes too.

Should infertile women get a tax rebate because they aren't taking money out the system for maternity services, maternity pay, child care, schooling, child benefit?

Is this true? How on earth is that justified?

Probably because its the woman trying to get pregnant, and it's classed as she is the patient regardless if its her problem or his. And actually its not unusual for their to be a combination of issues, like PCOS and low sperm count.

This.

It's not helpful to try and sow this 'his' and 'hers' mentality when looking at issues concerning mutual interests like fertility and sex.

When you see these threads about women who want to have kids but the husband is pulling away/being distant, in some cases it's no doubt a sexual problem that he's ashamed to discuss. It's better dealing with it as a couple rather than trying to other these men and complain when it's looked at holistically.

Sometimes it's performance anxiety so it's better to deal with it in a supportive way. Defo don't want angry cat ladies calling the shots for couples lol.

If they don't opt in, you make you can choose not to go ahead or use your own contraception I suppose.

So no different from the status quo don't have sex without contraception?

I actually can't believe anybody would suggest this to young men.
Would you want your son or nephew to do this, risking their future fertility?

What would make sense is some sort of male pill but nothing removes the STD risk.

You understand we need to repopulate so 'some people' will still have to procreate..

Nothing unethical about donating for research.. when have I discussed that previously?

The NHS isn't supposed to and isn't able to pay for every single medical treatment someone needs or in this case: wants. Anything elective needs to be paid for yourself or crowdfunded. And we need to reserve the NHS for life-threatening or other serious issues only. Maybe, if we can afford to or vote for it, less serious issues. But not anything elective.