Edit: I want to clarify, I hold neither stance as I don’t feel I have enough information on the subject. I’m just looking for viewpoints that I haven’t yet considered.
Original post is as follows:
I had this thought recently and I’d like some external opinions. For those who don’t know, a vasectomy is reversible.
For:
- Unwanted pregnancy is a huge issue for society and a worry for many people. Doing this would solve both problems entirely.
- Female birth control very often causes uncomfortable side effects for the woman, while a vasectomy is a one-and-done deal with a very small chance of failure or future complications.
Against:
- Doing this may violate bodily autonomy, as you are undergoing an optional medical procedure without your knowledge. The same argument can be made about how circumcision is treated in many parts of the world.
- Reversal is expensive and may not always work. A potential rebuttal of this is that if you are in the financial position of being able to raise a child, you will also have the necessary funds to reverse your vasectomy.
I would appreciate all opinions on this!
I also understand this can be a sensitive question, so please be civil in the comments.
The final solution for poverty…
I can see how you might reach that conclusion, but consider this: do you feel it is correct to bring a life into the world knowing that you can’t afford to provide for them? To me, that’s placing an unnecessary burden on both your family and society.
Though with that being said, someone else mentioned that reversals are ~$10,000, which is obscenely expensive and way more than I thought it would be, so the current cost of them does make it seem like I’m saying “only the rich should have children”, even when I’m not.
I don’t have any issues at all with the logic or reasoning, my objection is on the grounds of ethics…
Take the one child policy. The exemptions china implemented were for farmers and minorities, but what if they had, instead, applied your reasoning… Let’s say once a couple had a viable child, any pregnancies required a state mandated abortion. However, for $10k, a couple could buy a permit exempting them from that abortion. Your reasoning supports this, but ethically, is this not sounding awfully dark?
You’re talking about bodily autonomy, and your reasoning is suggesting that it should be denied by default, but subject to purchase… Preserved for those wealthy enough to meet a certain standard…
It’s logical, but it ain’t ethical.
