A science teacher once explained to me, long ago, that while in monogomous couples having the male neutered is not out of the ordinary it is no more effective then having the female neutered. This same teacher went on to explain that when viewed on a larger scale having men neutered becomes ultimately useless.

Since it is the female who becomes pregnant and carries a child to term if one were to have the goal of population control in mind it is in fact the female who should be neutered so that no matter which male engaged in sexual congress with her no new children would be concieved.

Why is it men are expected to carry this burden in the first place? Again since it is the woman who carries the unborn child why then does she not opt to have the same procedure done? If she is so concerned about becoming pregnant again does it not make since to have her tubes tied?

Asking your husband to snip his bits becuase you don't want to endure another pregnancy seems to me both selfish and domineering. To me it would be the same to ask a woman to abort her fetus because frankly you didn't want to father any more children. Why don't men make the same fuss about the right to their balls as women to about the right to their wombs?

There really is no reason a man should ever be neutered. If a woman wants no more children she should have her tubes tied. End of story.

As a divorced man who already has the best children in the world, it's quite convenient for me that I have been fixed.

For a man, a vasectomy involves about 30 minutes of operating time using a local anesthetic, with healing completed in about a week or 10 days.

For a woman, a tubal ligation involves general anesthesia or spinal anesthesia and laparascopic surgery. Healing can take several weeks. The risks of surgical complications (like adhesions) is much higher. The risks of anesthesia is much higher.

The risk to women who must take a birth control pill daily during her reproductive lifetime are an increased risk of stroke, heart attacks, and blood clots with sometime lethal complications.

As a survivor of a deep vein thrombosis due to birth control pills, and who has permanent leg damage as a result, I am greatly in favor in men taking some of the responsibility for reproduction limits. So suck it up and have a vasectomy if you don't intend to have more children, or to have children at all. Be a man and take the responsibility for preventing pregnancy away from women alone, because you're part of the equation.

That said, the article was less than helpful, if honest.

The risk to women who must take a birth control pill daily during her reproductive lifetime are an increased risk of stroke, heart attacks, and blood clots with sometime lethal complications.

As a survivor of a deep vein thrombosis due to birth control pills, and who has permanent leg damage as a result, I am greatly in favor in men taking some of the responsibility for reproduction limits.

-Phantomlimb

Getting your tubes tied would prevent you from having to take birth control. So . . . what's your point?

Since the woman carries the child in her womb and the male plays no part in the actuall pregnancy itself it should lie soley with the women to alter THEIR bodies if pregnancy is not desired. Be it pills or surgery.

Simply because the surgery takes longer for women does not negate the fact that to ask another person to alter their body so you don't have to experience pregnancy is both absurd and incredibly selfish. It's the WOMAN who carries the child so why is the MAN getting neutered?

It's far more dangerous for a woman to undergo a procedure that will prevent pregnancy.

Besides, us men don't have to endure pregnancy along with the physical and hormonal changes that go with it. It's the very least one can do in a relationship (get the ol' snip-snip) when no more pregnancies are wanted.

Judging from your posts, you view vasectomy almost as a form of punishment. On the same token, why should a woman be expected to undergo surgery?

In this county, at least, we acknowledge that it takes TWO people to make a baby. You say that "if a woman wants no more children she should have her tubes tied".

Well, what if a MAN wants no more children? If both a man and woman in a committed relationship decide that they want no more children, a vasectomy is by FAR the safest option for the couple. Birth control and tubal ligation are both medically more risky, as described above. Additionally, in many cases vasectomies are reversible, which is decidedly not the case for tubal ligation.

Furthermore, how is it selfish for a woman to ask her husband to get a vasectomy if they have decided together that they do not want any more children? The couple would have shared responsibility for any new baby created, so it stands to reason that they share the responsibility for preventing an unwanted pregnancy.

You say that "Since the woman carries the child in her womb and the male plays no part in the actuall pregnancy itself it should lie soley with the women to alter THEIR bodies if pregnancy is not desired."

However, a baby doesn't just exist for nine months- It is a lifetime commitment. You're missing a crucial point: its not just pregnancy that's no longer desired, its the creation of another person, a child. Big difference.

Also, a vasectomy is not neutering by any definition of the term. Jesus.

You make it sound like they cut his balls off, for Christ's sake!

It is a minor outpatient procedure that has minimal discomfort and short recovery time.

Neutered denotes removal of the testicles, like what you do to your dog. Vasectomy involves cutting the vas deferens only, preventing only sperm from being ejaculated.

This argument seems misguided at the least and misogynistic at it's worst.

"If a woman wants no more children..." What about you? Do you want children? Are you willing to invest 18 years (at least) in the raising of a child? If your answer is 'no' then I suggest that you, sir, and any other like minded males should immediately schedule your vasectomy.

Your science teacher was a selfish, rationalizing prick, and you seem to have picked up the same traits. Even if we accept the extremely dubious claim that, on average, "having men neutered becomes ultimately useless", that observation is pointless in the context of any single monogamous relationship, which is what this is. That's like saying, "well, though my girlfriend is diabetic, women in general love chocolate, therefore giving her chocolates is a great idea".

"Why is it men are expected to carry this burden"? For the vast majority of history they haven't been, and it's a threat to that assumption that made your science teacher and you feel so uncomfortable. If you want to stick to your men-vs-women mindset that's caused so much harm over so much time, go ahead, and I hope your relationships are as miserable as they deserve to be. The rest of us who are going to go on seeing people as people and treating our partners with respect.

To All of the Above:

If two people decide not to have children that's great but I still don't see why a man has to go under the knife. It's not sexist or masoginistic. Asking a man to alter his body because you don't want to carry another child to term is what's selfish regardless of the life long implications having a child represents.

As for the lesson my science teacher tought I made it quite clear it applies only on a large scale where population control was desired and did not in fact apply to a single monogomous couple.

Safety issues aside it is still the woman who must carry the child for a lengthy pregnancy so again why should the man alter his body? The man does not experience the pregnancy and if he and his wife have decided jointly to no longer bear offspring together that man may still want to concieve children with another woman at some point in life without having to reverse a vasectomy. If a woman simply never wants to endure pregnancy again then it makes the most sense, and again regardless of saftey issues, for her to be rendered sterile.

It's a sexist and feminist bludgeoning tool to ask of, demand, or put pressure on a man to have his bits snipped for any reasons other then his own desire to do so and without provocation or direct pressure from a woman.

I also love how lilzilla makes a connection between a man having the surgery done with respect for his partner. Why is the woman not doing the same out of respect for her husband? That wouldn't be the same thing? Oh no of course not because it's PC now for men to be reduced to little more then mindless sex pigs who must be brought to heel under the guise of gender equality.

True gender equality, and indeed the only fair way to make a decision like this, would be to remove gender from the equation and take a long hard look at your marriage and decide which of you truly never wants a child again. Is it the woman who never wants to endure another pregnancy? Or is it the man who feels he's reached his emotional and financial limit as far as his capacity to raise children?

These are the questions that must be considered not simply who will it be easier to cut open and tie off. Which brings me back to my point. Since the woman is the one who endures pregnancy it is she who must decide ultimately how many children will be had. Therefore viewed from this persepctive it should be she who is spade and not the man unless he decides he's finished having children forever and then yeah let him have his bits snipped.

I wonder how long you can go on asking for reasons, rejecting them, and saying, "I still don't see why ...."

If you're worried about coercion, rest assured that no one can be forced to get a vasectomy against his will. Being asked to do something by a partner, and being willing to comply, does not constitute repression, coercion, or inequality.

I keep asking for valid reasons because none have yet been supplied.

All answers pertain to the man being respectful of his wife and their marital bond which amounts to a useless pile of crap.

Unless a man really wants it done it should be understood to ask it of him is both selfish and innappropriate.

And no, no worries about coercion. I'm well aware there is no legal way to force a man to do it but women being the vile manipulative gender they are there is no need for legal coercion. Women get it done the old fashioned way.

shawhan86, 1/22 at 2:25 p.m.: "It's not sexist or masoginistic [sic]."

shawhan86, 1/22 at 6:49 p.m.: "... women being the vile manipulative gender they are..."

'nuff said.