At age 18 or younger with parental consent a person can join the voluntary reversible sterilization program. Once the risk and benefits are explained a youth can join the program. They sign a contract to undergo a reversible sterilization procedure. The exact method will be determined at that time and ideally would be easily reversiable. They are compensated for undergoing the procedure for example $500 the first year and $250 for the next 5 years.-- duroncrush, Feb 02 2004 Reversal of sterilisation http://www.babycent...gpregnant/7087.htmlSuccess rates to reverse female sterilisation are 55%-85% depending on method used. So would you want your daughter to have a 15% chance of never having children? [kropotkin, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004] Male sterilization reversal http://www.fhi.org/...les/STER/s4pg16.htm75% success is the highest rate quoted here; other studies put it at 50%-60%, or less. So you want half your sons to never become fathers? [kropotkin, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004] Pregnancy rates after female sterilization http://www.fhi.org/...les/STER/s3pg25.htmNot 100% effective: 0.55 pregnancies per 100 women in the year following sterilization. [kropotkin, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004] Surgical adhesive http://haem.nus.edu.sg/ishapd/1999/54.pdf [kbecker, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004] To my knowledge, no such reversible sterilization procedure is available - they all have drawbacks of various kinds. The state would be open to all sorts of legal action if things went wrong. Also, encouraged sterilization of young people easily turns into forced sterilization of those deemed 'irresponsible' or 'undesirable' in the wrong social climate. A medical solution to a social problem.-- dbarrett, Feb 02 2004 Sterilisation isn't going to make people deal with sex in a mature and responsible way - probably the opposite. Nor will it prevent STDs. The best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies has to be an open and informative sex awareness program.-- hazel, Feb 02 2004 Abstain. And why on earth is this voluntary 'get your freak on' program subsidised?-- Johnny Mash, Feb 02 2004 It might be ok to have adults doing this based on their own judgment (although you can argue whether they should be paid for it), but to allow parents to sterilise their children is totally unacceptable, even if it is *probably* reversible - and the chances aren't particularly good.
Parents would be risking their child's chance of having children and risking their life (all surgery has risks, although for a vasectomy the risk to life is minimal); this would also encourage the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and because sterilisation is not 100% successful might also create additional pregnancies.-- kropotkin, Feb 02 2004 Why'd you delete my anno [duroncrush]?-- hazel, Feb 02 2004 Lets not stick our heads in the sand people. Sex happens it always has and always will. This is just away to make sure children are born in good enviroment.
1. This is a voluntary program.
2. It will only appeal to people that need money
3. The risk are fully explained
4. People that need money aren't likely to be able to support a child or spend money on birth control
5. There are new methods being developed including a vaccine that stops sperm production and should be 100% reversible, requireing no surgery.-- duroncrush, Feb 02 2004 A vaccine for what? Babies?-- hazel, Feb 02 2004 // 4. People that need money aren't likely to be able to support a child or spend money on birth control//
What a ludicrous and presumptuous statement!
[duron], are you older than sixteen? As [kropotkin] points out, sterilization is not a sure thing, as well as adding the risk of STD's to unprotected partners. The eleven and counting negative votes are an indicator of how this idea would be viewed in the general public. I suggest you take that indicator seriously.-- k_sra, Feb 02 2004 I've not had a sterilisation of any kind, yet through the use of contraceptives, choice and care I've successfully managed to stay baby-free thus far. It's not a difficult thing to do, but the way forward is education. I personally think that sterilisation is a step too far since there is no reversible way of doing it. The contraceptive pill and barrier methods are about as effective when used properly. Contraception in the UK is free.-- hazel, Feb 02 2004 Ok I admit defeat. I didn't think this idea would be greeted so harshly.-- duroncrush, Feb 02 2004 Ever so +. Good to see that *someone* is thinking in the right direction, even if the solution isn't quite optimal yet.-- darksasami, Feb 02 2004 Making something like Norplant or Depo-Provera free for people of a certain age might be a less controversial way to do what you want. Of course, you could also just give away condoms. Part of the problem is that the places most concerned about teenaged pregnancy are also the places (not coincidentally) where there's the least keenness to teach teenagers about sex and ensure that they have access to birth control.
The business of paying people not to have babies is sort of dicey. It'll look like you're trying to prevent the poor from breeding.-- Monkfish, Feb 02 2004 I agree with [darksasami], one should eliminate the surgery. I'm thinking about closing some of the critical ducts with surgical adhesive (link) through a small catheter. Glue should be designed so the body resorbs it within 3-5 years or it should dissolve in enzyme that can be applied with a catheter to remove the block. I don't know if anyone is working on that or something like it is available.-- kbecker, Feb 02 2004 Eugenics: The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
Really is that what you think? So are you assuming that only certain minorities or classes would opt for this or are you saying that only certain "groups" have children while in this age range? There is no overseeing organization that says who can and can't have children. No one is paring up couples to improve or breed out traits. So where is the selection? Where is the breeding?
The idea is to delay people from having children until they are better prepared and that's it. Would this be more palatable if instead of money the offer was for a college tuition reduction or maybe a choice of cash or college?-- duroncrush, Feb 03 2004 Dave Chappell had a piece on this, where he advocated a live demonstration of the principal of the school having sex with the oldest female teacher. Should cut down on teen sex, for a few weeks anyway.-- ato_de, Feb 03 2004 Male contraception is "just around the corner". With mandatory DNA paternity testing on all live births, "Big Brother" can penalize (no pun intented) all procreators who shirk $ responsibilities of childcare. Ergman-- ergman, Feb 03 2004 birth control pills, IUD's and even condoms are reversible sterilization methods.
Why would anyone pay you to protect your own intrests ?
If birth control methods are free, so should abortions.-- SystemAdmin, Feb 04 2004 // If birth control methods are free, so should abortions.//
Both are free in the UK. However, the fact that so many abortions still take place*, rather indicates that the availability of free contraception isn't an entirely successful solution. People need to understand the emotional and physical consequences of sex - it's not just about making babies, although that clearly is going to happen if you're not responsible.
That said, [duroncrush] has already admitted it's a crap idea!
* I realise lots of these aren't just because someone couldn't be arsed to find the condoms-- hazel, Feb 06 2004 random, halfbakery