Proposition: Mandatory vasectomies for all men

Post Reply New Topic

Should vasectomies be made mandatory for all men once they reach puberty?

Sperm would be collected and stored prior to the procedure. If a man decides with his partner that they want to have children, they can use the frozen sperm for artificial insemination.

This would elminate fear over unwanted pregnancies. And no sex-ed would be required!

Note that the suggestion is for mandatory vasectomies and not mandatory tubal ligations - the rationale being that vasectomies are safer as compared to tubal ligations (less invasive, does not require general anesthetic), and lower potential for impact on fertility (tubal ligation is irreversible and those little ova are hard to collect... and let's not forget that sperm can be easily collected, frozen and stored prior to a vasectomy for use later).

Discuss.

EDIT - Please note, I am not suggesting under this scheme that we do away with sex ed. I was simply making reference to the argument of those who push for abstinence only "education" as a means to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.

Last edited by cave_canem on 28 May 2011, 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Probably illegal to do in the US. Roe vs. Wade can be a double-edged sword sometimes.

Why not. Just don't waste your time with me. There's no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy between catholics.

In reality: no. In fact that's a horrible idea.

It would only discourage women from demanding a condom during sex, and males thinking there is no reason to do it.

Sexually transmitted diseases would conquer the world.

And since 1 out of 2000 vasectomies fails, unwanted pregnancies will still happen.

I'd agree, however I believe that women who currently demand a condom be used to prevent pregnancy and/or STDs would continue to demand a condom to prevent STDs alone. And women who use other forms of birth control (the pill, IUDs, etc) and who do not currenly demand a condom be used would not demand that one be used if a man has had a vasectomy. So, all in all, I don't buy that the rate of condom use would necessarily drop, or at least not as drastically as you are implying.



Valid point. But the overall rates of unplanned / unwanted pregnancies would go down dramatically.

[quote=WebMD"]Vasectomy is a very effective (99.85%) birth control method. Only 1 to 2 women out of 1,000 will have an unplanned pregnancy in the first year after their partners have had a vasectomy.[/quote]
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/vasectomy-14387

Too many ethical issues to perform in large numbers. The fact that it is a surgery is a minor problem(although I will recognize it is a very minor surgery). Even further, even though men can result in unwanted pregnancy, a large number of men do not, and so to force them to undergo this kind of surgery is problematic. In addition, there is a problem in the large-scale storage of biological material, AND in making sure that this material is properly protected. A man's body is something easily kept together, but a storage facility could even result in nightmarish misfiling issues, thus resulting in men who have false sperm or who no longer have their own sperm(which is an issue, particularly in that mating selection is implicitly a selection process for good genes). Or as well, have problems in that large quantities of semen will have to be shipped for people who move across the country and/or world(or large numbers of people). In addition, human beings may like the idea of conception, which, conceiving a person from a laboratory decision has less magic than deciding in privacy in a bedroom and through a sexual act, sex and fertility have generally been subject to human rituals and seen as "magical" and this removes the "magic"(Note: I am not referring to mysticism, only an aesthetic). As well, men may enjoy the feeling of ejaculation, which, no longer exists if they have a vesectomy. And as well, there are all sorts of issues with violation of "rights", and with immigration, as immigration may plummet or emigration may rise because of a policy like this, as mandatory surgery with life-altering consequences is pretty draconian. This policy will harm the lower classes more than any other class as transportation of semen will either have to be tax-funded(making it unpopular) or it will involve financial costs for conceivers, which will impact people on grounds of their socioeconomic position, even when this does not impact desirable traits. (Many people with advanced degrees also fail to attain high levels of wealth) Finally, population growth will go down, which.... generally isn't good for fiscal matters, and it really isn't even that important for the first world ANYWAY, as most population growth is in the third world. (as well, given that this is a massive change, we do not know the socioeconomic impacts, thus making large-scale implementation very dangerous as there can be many unforeseen consequences)

Finally, sex ed is still needed because one of the REALLY big issues isn't pregnancy but rather STDs. STDs can be irreversible, but unwanted pregnancy is reversible, and/or temporary. A woman doesn't have to keep the child once pregnant, they can put up a child for adoption. A woman doesn't have to carry the child to term. STDs, however, can lead to death and/or permanent health problems, and they are a major concern with sexual behavior. We will never be able to abolish sex ed.

Vex is probably right though. I mean, we're not dealing with perfectly rational beings here and one of the big "benefits" is that sex ed would be less important in your system. However, the real problem isn't unwanted pregnancies, but really it is STDs. Pregnancies can be undone, children can be put up for adoption. STDs can be permanent. Some aren't, but some will bother you for the rest of your life, and/or end it.

Why not just kill off the human race and any other placental mammals?

Between 1984 and Brave New World, what is the point of humanity without any humanity?

If you want to cut your nads off go ahead but leave everyone else's alone.

To propose such a thing implies that we don't have any rights at all.
Get a grip.

Possibly, however...

I suppose I should have been a bit more precise in my opening post - I am not actually suggesting we do away with sex ed, it was more of a... um... "jab" at those that think unplanned pregnancies can be done away with simply by promoting abstinence. I will edit my original post to reflect this fact. I agree sex ed would still be required. I would argue with you that information about the mechanisms of conceiving / pregnancy etc. are just as important a part of sex ed as is information regarding STDs and their transmission and impacts.

This is a typical Feminazi idea - blame only the men for unwanted pregnancies, and then forcefully sterilize them all.

Sort of like when Der Fuhrer declared all the Jews were to blame for everything that was wrong with Depression-era Germany, and then proceded to "sterilize" them right off the face of the Earth.

It didn't work then, and it wouldn't work now.

How about women take some responsibility and not have unprotected sex with men they don't want to have children with? What a novel concept.

Great idea until the sperm bank notifies everyone that their refridgeration system failed, as did their backup, or they were hit in an earthquake/tornado and that - if you want to have kids - you'll need to go to the hospital to have your vasectomy reversed. I wonder what a sperm bank's insurance bills would look like at that point....

In all seriousness though - I think people just need to exercise self control, or, they need to fall the consequences of their own decisions. Without some degree of that decision-making you don't have a society of fully-formed adults.

IVF is still possible with a tubal ligation, but not with a vasectomy. Do the tubal ligations and allow children only to those who are serious enough to use IVF.

Malpractice insurers would love this idea as well. I think their pockets would explode!

Human rights violation. It's that simple.