Proposition: Mandatory vasectomies for all men

Post Reply New Topic

A couple few little points, I think:

1. Nobody seems to have recalled what we have been told, that vasectomy is not 100% a guarantee.

2. Nobody seems to have pointed out that "sex education", whether it does or does not mention the possibility of abstinence, whether or not it mentions any other techniques or strategies or devices, is no more effective in changing behavior than any other "education", so long as that is school slop rather than lifelong familial and societal training and example.

3. I for one notice the tension and zigzag between "unplanned pregnancy" and "unwanted pregnancy.", which are not the same and which are far from telling the whole story which will include the pregnancy unplanned but welcome, the pregnancy planned but regretted, the pregnancy wanted and planned by one parent but highly inconvenient to the other, the pregnancy wanted and planned by the parents but an abomination to family and / or society, and so on.

4. Child prevention / elimination is not unDarwinian, but usually one of the parents eats or rejects the offspring once born.

-----------

To shortcut things: I am not here MAKING nor am I RESPONDING to any political or religious point; I see none in the question [unless sociasl engineering counts] though some of the responses bring in political issues.

No perceived philosophical issues, either, but I am here doing the arguably philosophical thing of pointing up thinking that lacks focus and / or follow through.

Cut the dicks off of male children at birth. That makes just about as much sense.

ruveyn

Mutatis mutandis pretty much my response to one important reason for abortion put forward by Wee Coryl. Which gives me an idea - why not just automatically test every amniotic blister and abort those which have a Y chromosome or other undesirable genetic anomaly? Even though a neonate is, we are told not human and likely feels no pain, castration may be a bit too close to an establishment of religion. YOU saw who suggested it.

I prefer life in a liberal state where the decisions regarding the well-being of my body are not left to the state's discretion.

Ridiculous thread.

For what possible reason do you believe that you have the right to control the bodies of others? This is a terrible idea, and extremely unethical.

Yet another reason why I want limited government.

I agree with the first statement.

As for the second - I personally believe that this thread is no more ridiculous than a lot of the threads that get started here regarding controlling other people's reproductive rights.

Yes, the proposition is ridiculous. As is the temptation that so many have to force their own reproductive beliefs onto others. That was my point.

@Philologos - you have made some excellent points. Especially regarding unplanned vs unwanted pregnancies, and child prevention/elimination not being "unDarwinian".

Also, in general to those who seem to be swapping the terms castration and vasectomy - those are two very different things. A vasectomy does not require one to 'cut nads off' or any such thing.

Right - I decided not to punch that one down. There is so much toktok going on that the linguist scion of two Classicists each the offspring of a lawyer has to choose his battles.

You are giving a false equivalency.

Abortion involves the life of a seperate individual that is not being given a say in whether or not they have a right to exist. If a woman wants her tubes tied, that's one thing; that's her choice. That said, a child inside the womb is a seperate individual whom happened to be brought into existence by the woman's choice to have sex (rape is actually a small minority of abortions).

Controlling the life of another person is ridiculous, full stop. The only situation in which you should be allowed to initiate force on a person is if that person initiated force on another person, for example if they murdered or raped someone.

Taxation would fall under this philosophy. Taking money from someone is initiating force on them.

emphasis added

That is a false equivalency - a zef is not a separate individual.

In any event, it is not a "false equivalency" to say that there are people who wish to control the reproductive rights of others. This goes beyond abortion - this goes to things like refusing or limiting access to birth control, and eliminating sexual education so that they do not have the requisite knowledge to control their reproduction. These are all things that you, and others, promote.

Abortion is a small part of the equation - but if we make it illegal except in certain situations (rape, health of the mother, etc.), it will create an atmosphere where no doctor would be willing to perform even legal abortions due to fear of legal action.

Wrong. Sperm are only a small part of the ejaculate, the sensation doesn't change after a vasectomy.

I wouldn't mind a free vacectomy, but it'd be crazy to make it mandatory.

Heck no, the moment that becomes mandatory I'll raise the Butterfinger flag and grab my rifle.

Well, glad to have a correction. Thank you for letting me know.

I favor the idea of making people unable to reproduce.