Medical research

[Despare]

Originally Posted by PR3SSUR3

I'm not so sure that free vasectomies wouldn't promote promiscuity, and further the STD problem. Not to mention the free reversals of the operation for headstrong teenyboppers who get older and find that life has changed.

For everyone else in long term (and committed) relationships, I think forking out for this big mod is perfectly acceptable if other, cheaper, temporary forms of contraception are deemed too much of a hassle.

Why shouldn't a program that takes my money (or my company's) month after month not pay for something like that? They get money for years and years upon end without me needing much of it, they can afford to pay for that procedure.

[The STE]

Originally Posted by PR3SSUR3

It might not be cosmetic, but it is still a procedure for lifestyle 'convenience' instead of a health necessity. Furthermore, considering it might be administered to do away with condoms, it seems odd to 'insure' a person for it who in all likelyhood may be more at risk to spread or receive AIDS.

If someone would fuck strange pussy without a condom, they'd do it with or without getting snipped. If someone has enough foresight to think "Hey, I don't want kids, and condoms fail 2-15% of the time, I should get a vasectomy" then they probably have enough foresight to think "man, this chick's crotch could be patient zero, I'd better wrap it up." Yeah, it could be considered a procedure of convenience, but it's just as much a procedure of prevention. I don't wanna knock anybody up, and I'm taking some responsibility for it. Insurance covers the pill in some cases, why not cover this?

[PR3SSUR3]

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.

[Papillon Noir]

Originally Posted by The STE

If someone would fuck strange pussy without a condom, they'd do it with or without getting snipped. If someone has enough foresight to think "Hey, I don't want kids, and condoms fail 2-15% of the time, I should get a vasectomy" then they probably have enough foresight to think "man, this chick's crotch could be patient zero, I'd better wrap it up." Yeah, it could be considered a procedure of convenience, but it's just as much a procedure of prevention. I don't wanna knock anybody up, and I'm taking some responsibility for it. Insurance covers the pill in some cases, why not cover this?

Health Insurance only covers the pill if the woman is taking it to relieve a medical condition. If she is just taking it for contraceptive reasons, insurance won't cover it. These medical conditions include irregular cycle, heavy bleeding/cramps, and acne. Not being able to get pregnant is just a bonus.

Your health insurance is not going to cover this surgery if it is not necessary. Also, having surgery done of any kind is a risk and this one can be pretty painful. Recovery time is usually at least a week, but sometimes the pain in that area can take weeks or years to go away. They have also linked this type of surgery to increasing the risk of getting dementia later.

Also, this is considered permanent surgery, sometimes they can do a reversal, but it is not always effective. I think electing to do this kind of surgery is kind of drastic just so you don't have to worry about getting someone pregnant. There are so many kinds of contraceptives out there today that are cheap, effective, and you that you don't have to get surgery for. Birth Control Pills are probably one of the world's greatest inventions.

[The STE]

Originally Posted by PR3SSUR3

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.

Actually, I think having the insurance cover the vasectomy, but not covering the reversal would be a fair trade-off.

Yeah, the surgery COULD promote more promiscuous sex. If someone were to get the surgery and then later go get plastered and hook up with some random vag, then he could have sex with her sans rubber and get an STD. It could happen. Would it happen to me? I don't drink, so it's unlikely.

The vasectomy is not for the random hookups I may or may not participate in. The vasectomy is for when I'm having sex with someone I've been with for a while, I know we're both clean, and I'd like to maybe have sex with her sans-condom without being super paranoid about knocking her up, because I know I don't want kids and I'd rather not get anybody pregnant. In my experience the majority of guys would rather just squirt and run than show a little responsibility, so where exactly is the harm in my insurance covering the vasectomy?

"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."
I don't think anybody would consider a vasectomy easy or handy. 90% of my male friends think I'm crazy for wanting to allow anything sharp that close to my equipment. And many of them want kids at some point and wouldn't get something done that they perceive as permanent. And in theory, the people getting snipped don't want kids in the first place, like me, and would rather get a vasectomy than muck up their lives and the lives of the people they get pregnant by now being forced to raise an unwanted kid (or again, by ditching). Hell, more than a few people I talked to mentioned abortions over getting a vasectomy.

[The STE]

Originally Posted by Papillon Noir

Also, this is considered permanent surgery, sometimes they can do a reversal, but it is not always effective. I think electing to do this kind of surgery is kind of drastic just so you don't have to worry about getting someone pregnant. There are so many kinds of contraceptives out there today that are cheap, effective, and you that you don't have to get surgery for. Birth Control Pills are probably one of the world's greatest inventions.

The two most effective methods I've found: Vasectomy and the birth control pill. I don't want to put the responsibility onto someone else, and I know that I'm never going to want kids anyways.


Also, getting a vasectomy doesn't render you completely sterile. It just prevents the sperm from going into the semen. Your testicles still produce sperm as fertile as it ever did, so even if you want kids but can't get a reversal, you can still get your SO pregnant.