Voluntary Sterilization Campaign

How hard would it be to have sterilization pushed forward (voluntary, of course)?

If sterilization were pushed forward by campaigning and such, what would have to happen? And would it even e a good idea? The way I see it, the benefits of large numbers of people choosing to be sterilized would be great. This is especially obvious with third world countries, where countless children are left to die of exposure, and supplies are nigh unto nonexistent. In the poor places in America, it could also have benefits.

Discuss?

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

Hey if you can get a force that will sut go ahead get the word out.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

...good luck.

Most men prize their dongtacular wang over their life. Making them only carry out half of it's function is a Fate Worse than Death for most.

Imagine every man is a gun-happy redneck...and their lower dragon is their gun. Now imagine asking a redneck if they would voluntarily have all their bullets be replaced with rubbed bullets or blanks.

---

That said, in some, but not all of those country, making that many children is a deliberate move.

More children=More helping hands at home or homestead.

This only applies to some of the countries with lots of homeless children.

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

So, men consider getting sterilized emasculating... and yet, if having unprotected sex results in a baby they don't really want, they whine when they're forced to pay child support? Seriously?

I fail to see how getting sterilised somehow makes men less manly.

Be not afraid...

Hell i'll actually do it myself the thought of sex Squicks me out anyway.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Loni: Cultural influences of course. Also remember accidents even when protection or surgery are used happen. Or sometimes sabotaged. It is not really simple cut and dry thing.

But yeah cultural influence is part of the reason it is hard to get a male to get the tubes tied.

Who watches the watchmen?

But - they don't want children anyway. If you don't want children, how is an inability to have them a bad thing?

I wonder what the catholic church's view on voluntary sterilisation is. They view contraception via condoms or the pill as wrong, and they view homosexuality as wrong, and yet a couple who are medically sterile are not sinning if they have sex (not very consistent, I know).

So I wonder what their stance on people choosing to become sterile is.

edited 2nd Apr '11 10:08:26 PM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

If it was something that could be undone if you changed your mind later, I'd go for it. Until then, no go.

Hello generalization, it's good to know you're the base of an argument and therefore making everything afterward rather null.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Not that I argue with this part of the logic, but:

How could you not realize how making a man's dick not work would make him feel less manly?

Have you ever actually met a man? Do you know the kind of crazy things men think will make them less manly? This is by far one of the more reasonable ones.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Considering that such movements have happened in the past, and are happening as we speak, it's evidently fairly easy. It would be more productive to discuss the drawbacks, the benefits, and the sheer ethics of the rich of the world telling the poor, "We don't want more of you."

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

^^^ He did say "most".

Provided that it caused me no pain, I'd be happy to be sterilised. If it did cause me pain, I think I could just restrain myself.

^ This would probably be more worth discussing.

edited 2nd Apr '11 10:12:12 PM by AllanAssiduity

But it still works. Getting your tubes tied doesn't mean you can't get an erection or can't ejaculate, it just means that when you do there aren't any sperm in it.

How is getting your tubes tied any different to using a condom constantly, aside from the fact that it won't prevent ST Ds?

Be not afraid...

"Getting your tubes tied doesn't mean you can't get an erection or can't ejaculate, it just means that when you do there aren't any sperm in it."

Some mistaken biology is at work here...

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

I want to get my tubes tied ASAP so I'm not really an unbiased party, here, but with the third-world thing... how would that work? Who would pay for it? Some cultures value having children basically above everything else, how would you convince them that not having children is a better idea?

I mean, wouldn't it be easier to give everyone condoms? It'd help with AIDS, too. However, people don't use them for a variety of reasons. What makes you think this would work any better?

Do you mean on my part? If so, would you explain? My understanding of the male sterilisation process is that it cuts the vas deferens but leaves all the seminal fluid ducts intact.

edited 2nd Apr '11 10:18:33 PM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

Most women are bitches.

See the problem here?

edited 2nd Apr '11 10:19:07 PM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

"Do you mean on my part? If so, would you explain? My understanding of the male sterilisation process is that it cuts the vas deferens but leaves all the seminal fluid ducts intact."

Males don't have tubes to tie ;)

@ Verdandi, check the link I posted.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Well, they're all tubes, right? Not fallopian ones, of course. But the vas deferens is a tube.

I wasn't aware that that expression could only be used for female sterilisation. It seemed to apply to both.

Be not afraid...

The problem is mostly public perception and legality.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

"The problem is mostly public perception and legality."

Could you elaborate on that? The problem, as I see it, has very little to do with putting such a system in place, and much more with the idea that curtailing the population growth in other countries is somehow a beneficial thing to do.

"Well, they're all tubes, right? Not fallopian ones, of course. But the vas deferens is a tube."

Sure, but colloquially, the phrase "getting the tubes tied" refers to women exclusively.

edited 2nd Apr '11 10:27:25 PM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

I read the article, it wasn't exactly positive. I was asking the OP (or anyone else) how this could be done without said human rights abuses.

This one would be glad to be sterilised and so getting absolutely sure that she is regarded as person, not as potential baby-maker. Alas, not allowed.

As for the male sterilisation - unfortunately, it is unlikely that it would be popular, due to the reasons mentioned above. most males seem to be very protective about their perceived "masculinity", even though this one fails to understand just how being unable to sire children they do not want anyway is going to diminish it.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

The quality of the orgasm depends heavily on the abount of ejaculant, so that's why I wouldn't have it done. Not that I'm going to be getting any women in trouble ever.

The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.

I have to ask:

And why not? Just not old enough? You will be, eventually.