|
Then if you would wear a condom for (one presumes at least several possibly forthcoming?) sexual encounters to avoid STDs, the point of being made infertile is to eliminate that 2-15% chance of impregnating your victim? This seems rather drastic given these statistics.
And I think the knowledge of being Jaffa'd would cloud judgement in deciding whether or not to have unprotected sex, particularly in drunken situations.
Contraceptive pills cost a lot less than this surgery, though you could argue their long term use could overtake the cost of a vasectomy (and even the costs involved in its reversal). But there is a permanency issue, a little like paying more to rent a house than having to pay out less monthly to buy it... but still retaining your freedom to walk away at any time.
If vasectomies are insured, should their reversals also be covered?
Finally, I think the procedure should remain a paid for, and therefore distinctive and luxurious operation for the benefit of the human race. It is a drastic mess with nature this (consider the 'I'll just get more surgery to reverse it' attitude), and the more it is thought as an easy and handy alternative to other contraception the long term implications of new generations of casually infertile men and fluid-swappers is a little worrying.
__________________
|