Parenting licenses

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Question: Why do people emphasize vasectomies' potential irreversibility when condemning forced sterilization of prisoners, but ignore vasectomies' potential irreversibility when telling teenage boys worried about the risk of being "dead-broke dads" to just get snipped?

Not that I support the former (it's pointless; any policy relying on vasectomies can be undermined by so much as one guy being left unsnipped; also one's real quarrel is with women who keep the baby and not with the arbitrary interchangable males off whom she got pregnant) just that it strikes me as casting the honesty of individuals invoking it into doubt.

Reversibility for vasectomy (I am ignoring your question for the sole reason that this thread is neither about prisoners nor "dead broke teenagers")

• 75% if you have your vasectomy reversed within 3 years
• up to 55% after 3 to 8 years
• between 40% and 45% after 9 to 14 years
• 30% after 15 to 19 years
• less than 10% after 20 years

Presumably if, as Tuvalu Princesses suggests, boys received vasectomy in childhood, it would be nearer the 15-20 year end of the spectrum.

I am ignoring your attempted slur on my honesty, as it is not the first time I've seen you cast aspersions about anyone who disagrees with you on any subject.

Don't put words in my mouth. I wasn't referring to yours in that post, I was referring to "theirs;" as in, the people who condemn vasectomies being done to prisoners (which, as you'll note, wasn't what was being proposed in this thread) as opposed to law abiding citizens, (which is what was) yet think it's acceptable to treat that as the sole solution to the risk of being dragged into poverty if the first girl he impregnates happens to keep the baby. Until paternity testing is made mandatory, we can't exactly prove such people practiced what they preached either, and I suspect they didn't.

[Kilobugya]

Question: Why do people emphasize vasectomies' potential irreversibility when condemning forced sterilization of prisoners, but ignore vasectomies' potential irreversibility when telling teenage boys worried about the risk of being "dead-broke dads" to just get snipped?

Do they really ? I'm not aware of anyone encouraging them in teenagers, and the practice itself is rare enough and mostly done, AFAIK, by older adults who already had kids and want to be sure they don't have more.

[The Free Joy State]

Reversibility for vasectomy (I am ignoring your question for the sole reason that this thread is neither about prisoners nor "dead broke teenagers")

• 75% if you have your vasectomy reversed within 3 years
• up to 55% after 3 to 8 years
• between 40% and 45% after 9 to 14 years
• 30% after 15 to 19 years
• less than 10% after 20 years

Presumably if, as Tuvalu Princesses suggests, boys received vasectomy in childhood, it would be nearer the 15-20 year end of the spectrum, if not longer (the average age of a first time father is 33.6)

Frozen sperm give a pretty good result, so I guess freeze some before doing the operation. More modern procedures avoid leaking sperm into the scrotum (which creates an immune response) and it's understandable that the NHS would give the lower figure, to avoid false hope for reversal candidates whose operation was done many years ago. If it also serves to discourage older men from getting a reversal, that would be good too. Old men's sperm is more likely to have genetic damage.

Parenting licenses are a confronting solution, and of course only a partial solution. But anyone who totally rejects them on ethical grounds, should also take a position on the method currently used (and too rarely) which is removing children from their families, to the distress of all of them.

Social services need more funding so they can monitor families and remove children (if it should be necessary). Foster carers need to be seen -- not as, as I am aware is sometimes the case from experience within my own family (one of my aunts was a foster carer and saw this with some other carers), an easy way to make some quick cash but as a noble and respected profession. New parents should have parenting classes and access to early support.

And child abusers should be punished much, much harsher.

But this is not the solution.

[The Free Joy State]

Social services need more funding so they can monitor families and remove children (if it should be necessary). Foster carers need to be seen -- not as, as I am aware is sometimes the case from experience within my own family (one of my aunts was a foster carer and saw this with some other carers), an easy way to make some quick cash but as a noble and respected profession. New parents should have parenting classes and access to early support.

And child abusers should be punished much, much harsher.

But this is not the solution.

Neither is the solution, but neither entirely replaces the other. Preventing child abuse is surely better than responding to it?

All the checks in the world cannot guarantee children are protected from abuse.

I pointed earlier to a case of adoptive parents in the UK -- where there are a huge amount of checks to adopt -- who murdered their little boy, because he didn't meet their expectations.

Child abusers can put up a hell of a front.

Meanwhile, you are creating a system that will be heavily politicised -- because any system where the government gets to decide who can be parents is politicised by default -- that allows the government to say "well, they're gay so they can't be parents; they're not rich, so they're bad parents; they're not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants so they have to be unfit parents."

[Heloin]

I like the idea that anyone who looks at the proposal of parental license and doesn't immediately think it's massively idiotic idea should be the only group of people who will get their parenting license denied.

It's enforceable. For men: reversible vasectomy in childhood. For women: implant contraception, and forced abortion if that is removed.

Same goes for anyone who thinks this isn't an absolutely horrific idea.

[Grinning Dragon]

It's enforceable. For men: reversible vasectomy in childhood. For women: implant contraception, and forced abortion if that is removed.

What in the blue jesus christ on a pogo stick is this shit? NO, just NO.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

It's enforceable. For men: reversible vasectomy in childhood. For women: implant contraception, and forced abortion if that is removed.

I would hope that any government that even suggests this is overthrown in a coup. Nobody is giving me a vasectomy and forced abortion sounds nothing short of traumatic.

[Saiwania]

It's enforceable. For men: reversible vasectomy in childhood. For women: implant contraception, and forced abortion if that is removed.

Vasectomy isn't reversible practically speaking. While it technically can, there is no guarantee a skilled enough surgeon or other specialist would be able to. An IUD is more easily removable from a woman assuming its not the difficult to remove or undo type that China has favored in the past. Lots of men would be unwilling to let any sterilization happen. When Eugenics was still in practice, it is perhaps why it was commonly done in secret. Patients were lied to among other things back then.

[Greater Cesnica]

It's enforceable. For men: reversible vasectomy in childhood. For women: implant contraception, and forced abortion if that is removed.

Fuck no.

I like the idea that anyone who looks at the proposal of parental license and doesn't immediately think it's massively idiotic idea should be the only group of people who will get their parenting license denied.

It's enforceable. For men: reversible vasectomy in childhood. For women: implant contraception, and forced abortion if that is removed.

Same goes for anyone who thinks this isn't an absolutely horrific idea.

Based

[Ethel mermania]

It's enforceable. For men: reversible vasectomy in childhood. For women: implant contraception, and forced abortion if that is removed.

I would hope that any government that even suggests this is overthrown in a coup. Nobody is giving me a vasectomy and forced abortion sounds nothing short of traumatic.

See, a revolution where you and I would be shooting from the same side of the barricades. Never thought we would see that day.

[The Free Joy State]

I would hope that any government that even suggests this is overthrown in a coup. Nobody is giving me a vasectomy and forced abortion sounds nothing short of traumatic.

See, a revolution where you and I would be shooting from the same side of the barricades. Never thought we would see that day.

I would also join the unlikely army of the reproductive freedom fighters.

[The Blaatschapen]

See, a revolution where you and I would be shooting from the same side of the barricades. Never thought we would see that day.

I would also join the unlikely army of the reproductive freedom fighters.

Fuck yeah!

I'm in. Where do I sign up. I have a fully functional pen.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I would hope that any government that even suggests this is overthrown in a coup. Nobody is giving me a vasectomy and forced abortion sounds nothing short of traumatic.

See, a revolution where you and I would be shooting from the same side of the barricades. Never thought we would see that day.

Every man is a minarchist or a strasserist or a maoist or an anarcho collectivist or a social Democrat until their balls are on the line. Nothing is more important than protecting your nether region.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I would also join the unlikely army of the reproductive freedom fighters.

Fuck yeah!

I'm in. Where do I sign up. I have a fully functional pen.

I have a fully functioning pen of sorts and I want to keep it that way and not have it tampered with by tyrannical forces.

[Galloism]

Question: Why do people emphasize vasectomies' potential irreversibility when condemning forced sterilization of prisoners, but ignore vasectomies' potential irreversibility when telling teenage boys worried about the risk of being "dead-broke dads" to just get snipped?

Do they really ? I'm not aware of anyone encouraging them in teenagers, and the practice itself is rare enough and mostly done, AFAIK, by older adults who already had kids and want to be sure they don't have more.

So yeah, this is a thing. Or they tell them to keep their legs closed.

They don’t see the irony at all, because of the hyperagency problem.

[Galloism]

Neither is the solution, but neither entirely replaces the other. Preventing child abuse is surely better than responding to it?

All the checks in the world cannot guarantee children are protected from abuse.

I pointed earlier to a case of adoptive parents in the UK -- where there are a huge amount of checks to adopt -- who murdered their little boy, because he didn't meet their expectations.

Child abusers can put up a hell of a front.

Meanwhile, you are creating a system that will be heavily politicised -- because any system where the government gets to decide who can be parents is politicised by default -- that allows the government to say "well, they're gay so they can't be parents; they're not rich, so they're bad parents; they're not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants so they have to be unfit parents."

And this right here. We saw this sort of thing with poll taxes and is one of the reasons we banned poll taxes outright.

They weren’t applied consistently, and were used to target certain groups. It wasn’t 100%, but it doesn’t have to be, as long as it’s slanted. In this case, it’s even worse, as you can use it to effectively slowly genocide a population by disproportionately not granting parenting licenses.

Of course, there’s also the issue that much like weed, anyone can make kids (with some help of a friend) and so there’s absolutely no way to enforce it up front either. This means you’ll be seizing kids from unlicensed parents when found out, which would add more strain to the adoption/foster care system.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Question: Why do people emphasize vasectomies' potential irreversibility when condemning forced sterilization of prisoners, but ignore vasectomies' potential irreversibility when telling teenage boys worried about the risk of being "dead-broke dads" to just get snipped?

Do they really ? I'm not aware of anyone encouraging them in teenagers, and the practice itself is rare enough and mostly done, AFAIK, by older adults who already had kids and want to be sure they don't have more.

I think I recall a thread from 2005-2007 that spoke of some hypothetical scenario of a teenage boy and teenage girl having sex, the condom breaking, and him having to drop out to pay child support. Popular opinion's response to the hypothetical was to say "he should've gotten a vasectomy, then."

[Forsher]

Do they really ? I'm not aware of anyone encouraging them in teenagers, and the practice itself is rare enough and mostly done, AFAIK, by older adults who already had kids and want to be sure they don't have more.

So yeah, this is a thing. Or they tell them to keep their legs closed.

They don’t see the irony at all, because of the hyperagency problem.

1) Source because I'm really struggling to believe this.

2) I'm pretty sure I know what the hyperagency problem is but I went to check and I'm getting a whole bunch of transhumanist stuff I'm thinking maybe I don't know...

[Kilobugya]

I think I recall a thread from 2005-2007 that spoke of some hypothetical scenario of a teenage boy and teenage girl having sex, the condom breaking, and him having to drop out to pay child support. Popular opinion's response to the hypothetical was to say "he should've gotten a vasectomy, then."

Really ? My responses would be 1. making it easier for teenage girls to access contraceptive pills 2. making abortion free and ease to access to when needed 3. the state paying for most childcare expanses.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Frozen sperm give a pretty good result, so I guess freeze some before doing the operation. More modern procedures avoid leaking sperm into the scrotum (which creates an immune response) and it's understandable that the NHS would give the lower figure, to avoid false hope for reversal candidates whose operation was done many years ago. If it also serves to discourage older men from getting a reversal, that would be good too. Old men's sperm is more likely to have genetic damage.

Parenting licenses are a confronting solution, and of course only a partial solution. But anyone who totally rejects them on ethical grounds, should also take a position on the method currently used (and too rarely) which is removing children from their families, to the distress of all of them.

Social services need more funding so they can monitor families and remove children (if it should be necessary). Foster carers need to be seen -- not as, as I am aware is sometimes the case from experience within my own family (one of my aunts was a foster carer and saw this with some other carers), an easy way to make some quick cash but as a noble and respected profession. New parents should have parenting classes and access to early support.

And child abusers should be punished much, much harsher.

You do realize that child abusers, once actually convicted, are among the most likely to get raped in prison, right? If that doesn't scare them out of abusing children, I don't know what will.

Or are you referring to restrictions on suspected child abusers? Because if suspicion that they have abused them is to be the standard, why not make the standard be on suspecting that they will abuse their child?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I think I recall a thread from 2005-2007 that spoke of some hypothetical scenario of a teenage boy and teenage girl having sex, the condom breaking, and him having to drop out to pay child support. Popular opinion's response to the hypothetical was to say "he should've gotten a vasectomy, then."

Really ? My responses would be 1. making it easier for teenage girls to access contraceptive pills 2. making abortion free and ease to access to when needed 3. the state paying for most childcare expanses.

"3" is the only applicable one when she makes a different decision regarding abortion than she claimed before coitus that she'd make. As it stands, it doesn't seem to have a plurality of voters on its side. Still too many market-worshippers out there.

In any case, that wasn't the general response at the time. Does this sound familiar to any moderators or long-time forumers in particular?

[The Free Joy State]

Social services need more funding so they can monitor families and remove children (if it should be necessary). Foster carers need to be seen -- not as, as I am aware is sometimes the case from experience within my own family (one of my aunts was a foster carer and saw this with some other carers), an easy way to make some quick cash but as a noble and respected profession. New parents should have parenting classes and access to early support.

And child abusers should be punished much, much harsher.

You do realize that child abusers, once actually convicted, are among the most likely to get raped in prison, right? If that doesn't scare them out of abusing children, I don't know what will.

Or are you referring to restrictions on suspected child abusers? Because if suspicion that they have abused them is to be the standard, why not make the standard be on suspecting that they will abuse their child?

Because I believe in punishments for those who have done wrong, not in ridiculous authoritarian shit that will fail (I again point to the adopters who murdered their adoptive child) to protect children from evildoers.

And parenting classes does not equate "suspecting people of being potential child abusers", nor does helping parents access early support (for example, if they are struggling with post-natal depression or something and feeling overwhelmed). It equates helping people be the best parent they can be.

[Kilobugya]

Really ? My responses would be 1. making it easier for teenage girls to access contraceptive pills 2. making abortion free and ease to access to when needed 3. the state paying for most childcare expanses.

"3" is the only applicable one when she makes a different decision regarding abortion than she claimed before coitus that she'd make.

I actually support "3" as a general policy for every child : free daycare, totally free preschool/school (including books, lunch, ...) and the state giving money to the parents to pay for most food/diapers/clothes expenses.

But then I'm a socialist/communist

[GuessTheAltAccount]

"3" is the only applicable one when she makes a different decision regarding abortion than she claimed before coitus that she'd make.

I actually support "3" as a general policy for every child : free daycare, totally free preschool/school (including books, lunch, ...) and the state giving money to the parents to pay for most food/diapers/clothes expenses.

But then I'm a socialist/communist

People are inexplicably more afraid of the hypothetical future of people mooching off the system than the present reality of child poverty. I guess these people haven't heard of Scandinavia. :/

But we're getting a little off track here. The same question still applies. Why does the same plurality of voters; which seems to consider that response to "dead-broke dads" adequate or they would've distanced themselves from it; then balk at the idea of vasectomies as a means to enforce parenting licenses?

[Ethel mermania]

I actually support "3" as a general policy for every child : free daycare, totally free preschool/school (including books, lunch, ...) and the state giving money to the parents to pay for most food/diapers/clothes expenses.

But then I'm a socialist/communist

People are inexplicably more afraid of the hypothetical future of people mooching off the system than the present reality of child poverty. I guess these people haven't heard of Scandinavia. :/

But we're getting a little off track here. The same question still applies. Why does the same plurality of voters; which seems to consider that response to "dead-broke dads" adequate or they would've distanced themselves from it; then balk at the idea of vasectomies as a means to enforce parenting licenses?

A state trying to enforce force vasectomies on any sort of scale needs to be toppled.