«

[Chuck the plant]

I know I'll be ignored anyway... but I just wanted to w00t for me since I was the one bringing it up in the first place :angel:

[BeefontheBone]

They do tend to recommend keeping some sperm just in case, since it is possible for there to be complications with either procedure, but the risk is AFAIK small.

I'd rather not be forced to have a vasectomy, thanks - although I'm not currently planning on having any children, I would really like to bring up a bilingual child given the chance; affinity for languages is something I wish I posessed more of myself.

[Doubler]

Tried to keep quiet, but failed :P

As an eighteen year old, who does not have a particulary bright financial future (As in: spending a small fortune to have things fixed again; could be better spend to give the kids a good future), and who really would like to raise his own kids some day, I'd just like to say I'm slightly suspicious about a measure to make vasectomy mandatory

I have fewer (or no) qualms about having such a thing done after becoming a father. In fact, I was already planning on it

Oh well, you can carry on ignoring me now

[taikara]

Originally posted by Doubler@Sep 22 2005, 08:38 PM
As an eighteen year old, who does not have a particulary bright financial future (As in: spending a small fortune to have things fixed again; could be better spend to give the kids a good future), and who really would like to raise his own kids some day, I'd just like to say I'm slightly suspicious about a measure to make vasectomy mandatory

In the US, I've heard it costs several (2-5) thousand to get a reversal procedure, and that is dependent on what insurance will cover, though I know they won't cover the whole shebang. It's not really cost-prohibitive anyway, especially when compared to other medical procedures that might be necessary throughout the course of a lifetime.

And actually, considering that Europe is more socialist in the US, it could cost less there, but I'm not sure... it could also cost more due to availability of surgeons who can perform the procedure.

Regardless, it's not so bad that it would prevent someone with limited means from having children, and the cost certainly wouldn't be enough to "give the kids a [better] future," as it will cost many, many, many thousands of dollars to raise even one child to adulthood.

Basically, if you can manage your household finances well enough to save up for the cost of the procedure, you are probably stable enough to provide a good (if not wealthy) home for your child.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Originally posted by Sebatianos+Sep 22 2005, 03:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sebatianos @ Sep 22 2005, 03:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-gorkur@Sep 22 2005, 10:06 PM
EDIT: No, I don't want kids

Well in that case you wouldn't even have to wait until you reach 25 (which is next year for you right?).

@Blood-Piggy: WHY? Inhumane would be choping the entire region off - ball and sausage
This is just a quick fix - and it's even reversable! [/b][/quote]
Well, neither should be removed in the first place. :bleh:

[xcom freak]

An elevated concentration of sperm could lead to an autoimmune reaction that could really hurt and have many consequences for some men.

i have to say : Stick to the pill

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by taikara@Sep 22 2005, 10:51 PM
In the US, I've heard it costs several (2-5) thousand to get a reversal procedure, and that is dependent on what insurance will cover, though I know they won't cover the whole shebang.

But I simply have to make this comment - I'm sure this would change if the procedure would be obligatory. I'm more then certain (although I haven't checked yet) that my insurence policy will not cover it (the reversal). When I decide to have it done (this actually may be covered by the insurence - girls do get contraception pills for free here after all, so this would probably be cheeper in the long run) it's going to be my decision - so I'm responsible for reversing it. So I bet they would not cover it (although as I said - I haven't checked for that really).

Talking about making it obligatory... What would be the earliest age to perform the surgery and how dangerous would it be? Would it maybe be simply comperable to surcumbsicion *I know spelling*?

[Danny252]

I don't think it would be good for this to be mandantory. So should we cut off dog's tails at birth, so they can't break something when wagging them? Or remove cats claws, so they can't scratch anything? Same principle. Not exactly the same, I know. But humans can think.

Also, imagine doing this to every male on earth. Thats about 3 billion operations, with another once every 18 seconds (a child is born once every 9, so...) Just imagine the costs, and the outcry.

This would create a dictated world. You would have to ask to have children. Do you want that?

Point proven.

[Tom Henrik]

I think the point you have proved is that you fast reply, Danny

[Kon-Tiki]

Thing with this, is that there wouldn't be as many children anymore. That's the whole point of the operation: To prevent accidentally having kids. You can't really count with current figures to prove it'd work or not, then.