I think it is a bit extreme to say they should get a vasectomy. Vasectomies are most appropriate for people who are married, have children, and are certain they don't want more children. Same is to be said for tubal ligation. There is no way to get around the fact that the woman has the most to lose from an unwanted pregnancy. It is one of those life isn't fair things.

It isn't fair if a couple gets pregnant, the guy wants the baby but the woman aborts it. I know, I know, it is her body but I guess I feel if you don't want to risk pregnancy, don't do it. If you want to be in control, use control and insist he does too. I think making a guy wear a condom is enough.

I don't think you thought your logic through.

If you want to control population through forced sterilization then I'm afraid the blatantly obvious way to do it effectively would be to sterelize females.

If you have a population of 100 men and 100 females and you require 90% of the males to be sterilized how many children could be made in 1 year? Answer: 100. Because 10 males can impregnate 100 females.

If you sterilize 90 females and all the males are kept normal, how many children could be produced in 1 year? 10.

Therefore, since you seem very concerned about population control I am assuming you will be signing up for sterilization?

How are men controlling women's right to reproduce?

Well..... yes and no.

I don't think that mass sterilization is really the answer to the worlds problems but I do think that education about it would be effective toward curtailing some problems. For instance I once knew a man who had 8 children. A large family by any standards. The problem with his family was that only two of the children had the same mother and only two of the women had ever been his wife. He hopped from girl to girl and as soon as they got pregnant and demanded that he be more responsible he hopped along his way. He continually complained about having to support his children (in equal measure to praising how great his children were) and about the women's constant need for money from him.

Very often he'd get challenged on "just wear a condom" and he'd shoot back with something about "cramping his style" or some other nonsense. Noone then, certainly not me, seemed to know anything about vasectomies or offer that up as a solution.

Even today 16 years later among my 30 something friends the assumption is that their wives/partners will get that taken care of when they're done having children (tubal ligation, the pill, IUD, etc.). But understanding the invasiveness of the tubal ligation procedure after having taken a Physiology and Anatomy class years ago I don't think that I'd wish that on anyone and especially not casually assume "she'll do it". So when it came time for my wife and I to stop having children I researched vasectomies and found out quite a bit.

The procedure took 15 minutes, the most difficult part my doctor forwarned me of is "shaving your own sack", which was true. The most uncomfortable part was the extremely cold cleansing solution they spray on to make sure everything is steril. The new procedure is stitchless. They simply shoot you up with a local anesthetic (they can knock you out if you want but... don't be a wimp) poke a hole in the sack and fish out one of the two vas deferens (creating a loop with the tube). Then the loop is cut, removing a small section and each end is cauterized. And repeat. A little ball gigling later to put the tubes back in place and your asked to hold a small piece of guaze on the holes and slide your pants up (wear tight underwear). Some ice and lite activity for a couple of days and voila. No stitches, no scars, and just some ice, very mild brief discomfort, and no discernable change in sexual function or ejaculate. (25 times later and a check by the doctor and you too could be pronounce sterile).

Now if the welfare system, government, religious organizations would get behind promoting this as a healthy alternative to abortion or leaving it up to women to decide I'd be all for it.

Of course there are problems... Part of the womens movement was about empowering women in regards to sexuality and reproduction. If we focused on men taking more responsibility and having more say over reproduction then would some women complain that we were again infringing on their rights, however indirectly. If we started a campaign to promote male reproductive education would it get blasted because that money should be better spent on female reproductive education ala abortion education and condom education?

I don't believe in abortion as a practical means of birth control. I don't believe in women being forced by their families or significant others into having to make a choice that means the death of a child (or potential thereof). I likewise don't believe that a women should make that choice to the exclusion of the father of the child (or potential thereof). It's a lose-lose situation.

I was there with my wife through multiple "spontaneous abortions" (misscarriages). If the pain of a voluntary abortion is even one fifth that of a spontaneous abortion then I wish that men all over would step up and do the right thing to help avoid creating more such pain. If it means by stepping up I have to educate other men about vascetomies, I'm willing to do that. If it means that some of my tax money goes towards better education of men in high risk roles, I'm okay with that. But I don't think we can continue down this path of legislating everything into/out of existence based on popularity of the concept (or lack of). I certainly don't think that we should be passing legislation based on loose assumptions about the why's when's and how's of a procedure that get's named one thing in the media and minds of the public and quite another in the medical text books. If a law is to be passed regarding these procedures (abortion/"partial-birth abortion"), then the law should be very explicit in those facts with a very well thought out WHY behind stopping people (and the consequences of what might happen if someone is stopped from using those procedures).

Draginol I think you're math is a little weak and there are too many assumptions in that argument.

Assuming you had a population of 100 men and 100 women and 90 percent of the men were sterilized. Assuming 100% success rate and leaving 10 men capable of impregnating a woman (assuming no natural disfunction). Then assuming that each man within a 2 month period were capable of successfully copulating with 10 women (capable of being impregnated, assuming no natural disfunction, of the proper child bearing age, and being approached during ovulation). Then assuming that each of the women was successfully impregnated and produced only one fetus (no twins, triplets, etc.) and that each fetus survived to term (10 months) and was born without complication. THEN you would have 100 children.

Can suggests capability not plausibility or probability. Yes 10 men 'can' impregnate 100 women. With that logic 1 man can impregnate 100 women.

Statistically it's more likely that you'd have 1 or none than 100 since birth rates are at an all time low of 13.9 per 1000. Much of that is due not to capability but to choices that are made. Women (and men) are waiting until much later in life to have children. Often this leads to infertility and sometimes, like some of the people I know, to a clear choice to just not have children ever. Abortion statistics suggest an all time low (lowest since the early 70's). This at the same time that teenage pregnancy numbers are at a 28% decline since 1990 (CDC birth figures). Many pro-life sites statistics stop reporting abortion rates at or around 1996 when the decline began and some even provide a false "estimate" for 97-2003 of around 1,350,000 abortions per year.

Nhavar: It goes beyond education. You can 'educate' until you're blue in the face and idiots will continue to be idiots.

Case in point: "Very often he'd get challenged on "just wear a condom" and he'd shoot back with something about "cramping his style" or some other nonsense."

Oy. Yes - this is a common reply to that, sadly. It proves that the male is particularly being an idiot. HOWEVER, the second a woman gets told this, that it's "cramping his style," or that the man "can't enjoy it if he does," and she relents or says yes - she's being /just as much/ of an idiot as he is.

But I think a vasectomy, in many cases, is quite a bit drastic. It's fitting for certain people, yes, and for those that it is, they tend to get them. However, birth control is /not/ solely a male responsibility OR a female responsibility. Both parties need to be fully responsible for their actions. If the man does nothing, and the woman goes along with that, yes, it's just as much her responsibility as his - and vice versa (This coming from having had a girlfriend who complained every time I insisted on wearing a condom, yes.)

Well, my thoughts on this- it takes two to tango. If the woman doesn't want a baby, she has these options (in logical order):
1) don't have sex
2) have protected sex
3) have your tubes tied (which is a fairly painless out patient procedure)

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule (acts of crime), or contraceptive failure. However, even with those exceptions, there is no reason for "partial birth" abortion. With acts of crime, the woman can go to the Dr. and get medicine that will force her menstruation ("morning after" pill) so no pregnancy results.

In this day and age, there is no reason for "unwanted" pregnancies. People just need to start having a bit of personal responsibility.

"But understanding the invasiveness of the tubal ligation procedure after having taken a Physiology and Anatomy class years ago I don't think that I'd wish that on anyone and especially not casually assume "she'll do it". " by nhavar

That may be true years ago, but it's not now. Tubal ligation is an easy out patient procedure. It's a laparoscopic procedure, so they make a tiny incision in the navel (has like two dissolvable stitches) then fold and band the tubes. Yes, you have to be put under for it. But, a lot of women have hardly any pain and can go back to work in a day or so. It's *much* different than it used to be

Um Nhavar, regardless of the details, the basis of my argument is valid.

If you sterilize the men, you won't have nearly the same effect on population growth as if you sterilized the women.

1 woman is only capable of reproducing every 9 months.

1 man can reproduce with any number of women (within stamina heh) in same said 9 months.

If you sterilize the men, you won't have nearly the same effect on population growth as if you sterilized the women.

1 woman is only capable of reproducing every 9 months.

1 man can reproduce with any number of women (within stamina heh) in same said 9 months.

Very true, and it shows that you have a much greater effect if you sterilize the man .
Lets say you have a very sexually active man and a active woman. Both are changing partners every day.
The woman can give birth to a child every 9 month, so assuming she gets pregnant whenever possible she after 9 month the woman will have produced one child.
The man however can impregnate 270 women in the same 9 month.
So sterilizing the woman will prevent the birth of one child while the sterilization of the man will stop 270 childs from being born.

What about overcoming this control by doing male vasectomy after sampling some sperm and keeping into liquid nitrogen. You could have total control of your reproduction activity and still enjoy quite a lot...

At least it will show male willing to do so and act with responsibility.

At some point some of you just chucked elementary logic right out the window.

If we step back from who should be sterilized..........

There are a multitude of contraception methods all with a 95% or better success rate and even a morning after pill. So therefore no one should be sterilized unless they want to be or a medical condition requires it.

Also there should be no need for any type of elective abortion. People need to be resopnsible for their actions.

I agree.

People, People, People, I'm sorry I couldn't clear up any confusion that may have arisen because of my article. My article was meant to be a satirical piece on male sterilization. I didn't mean that all men should be sterilized. I feel that we need more birth control options for men. Women have a assorted amount of birth control options. We have pills, foams, sponges, female condoms, IUD, shots, and those 5 matches sticks that are implanted under the skin (sorry the name of it escapes me at this very moment). I feel that men need more birth control options. I did not mean we should have men lining up at their doctors office to become sterilized. Truthfully, you hear more about women sterilization, than about men. You hardly ever hear the word VASECTOMY. So, I'm sorry if everyone thought I really meant that more men should become sterilized.