Why Don’t Anti-Abortion Advocates Talk About Vasectomies?

I don’t enjoy talking about hot-button issues like abortion.

I try to avoid talking about politics in general.

I know I’ve touched on controversial issues in the past, including abortion, but I’ve tried to get away from those topics this past year. A lot of that had to do with the 2020 Presidential election, which just brought out the worst in so many people.

Believe me, I had opinions on a number of issues, but I didn’t think sharing them would be very productive. Even with the benefit of hindsight, I think that was the right choice.

Now, the election is over. I know some people still haven’t accepted that, but the votes are in. Like it or not, we’re moving forward and a number of issues are not going away. Some are bound to get worse. One issue, I believe, that is almost certain to get more touchy is abortion.

It is the hottest of hot button issues and a while back, I even speculated that shake-ups on the United States Supreme Court could shift the legal landscape surrounding abortion. I think, given the current makeup of the court, that’s even more likely.

I’d even go so far to say there’s a good chance that Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion in the United States, will get overturned in the next two years. It’s not a guarantee, but it’s much more possible now than it was at this time last year. When that happens, the whole abortion debate will shift significantly.

However, the implications of that act is not what I want to talk about. Instead, I want to highlight one particular aspect of the abortion debate that never seems to get raised. I think there’s a not-so-subtle reason for that, but that’s exactly why I want to highlight it. It comes down to a simple question.

Why don’t anti-abortion advocates talk about vasectomies?

It’s not an irrelevant question. I would even argue it’s a question you can’t avoid if you’re primary goal is to reduce the number of abortions by any means necessary. I understand why making it illegal is the primary goal for the anti-abortion/pro-life crowd, but that cannot be the end of the debate.

Again, we have real-world examples of what happens when abortion is banned. They’re not pretty.

I’m still willing to set that aside for the sake of this question. I’ll even work under the assumption that those who identify as pro-life/anti-abortion are sincere when they say that abortion is the taking of a human life. I have reasons to question that assumption, but I’ll go with it anyways.

If you’re really serious about reducing abortion or just flat out ending it altogether, why not discuss vasectomies? By their nature, they eliminate the need for abortion.

A man with a vasectomy is exceedingly unlikely to impregnate a woman. It doesn’t matter how reckless and irresponsible they are with their sex life. The way vasectomies work ensure no sperm will ever come close to an egg. Even if you believe life begins at conception, this is critical. It means no abortion happens and no life is harmed.

Now, why am I singling out vasectomies instead of tubal ligation, which is the female equivalent? There is a reason for that and I promise it has nothing to do with sexism. It has more to do with logistics.

Simply put, a vasectomy is less costly and less invasive. On average, a vasectomy costs around $1,000 without insurance. By contrast, tubal ligation can cost up to $6,000 without insurance and has a slightly higher failure rate. The recovery period for a vasectomy is also shorter.

It’s simply cheaper and more effective. In addition, there’s also the matter of women being the one who bear the brunt of child-rearing for nine months at a time. Compared to that nine months of rigor, I think it’s also just more fair that men endure a few days of discomfort. That’s just my opinion, though.

Those opinions aside, I bring this back to the question at hand. Why aren’t anti-abortion activists talking about this? If they wanted to reduce abortions, shouldn’t they push for more men to get vasectomies? Should the male anti-abortion activists lead by example and get them as well?

That’s not to say this advocates full-blown sterilization. Both vasectomies and tubal ligation are reversible. Granted, it means undergoing another invasive procedure, but that will essentially guarantee that they’re serious about having children. They want a child and that matters a lot in the abortion debate.

In some cases, a reversal isn’t even necessary. Men can just freeze their sperm and preserve it so that it can later be used with in vitro fertilization. That’s an established procedure. There’s also another emerging procedure for creating sperm cells in a lab.

In the not-too-distant future, men won’t even need to freeze their sperm. They can just provide a cell sample, let a lab make sperm from that, and proceed to utilize standard in vitro to conceive children. Thanks to genetic screening technology like CRISPR, it might even produce healthier children overall.

All this would reduce, if not eliminate, the need for an abortion. This isn’t new technology. Vasectomies have been around a long time and, if anti-abortion activists were to push it, they could also support the development of technology like Vasalgel, which is basically a less invasive method that achieves the same result.

So, with all that being said, why don’t anti-abortion activists ever mention vasectomies? Why do they focus so much on the woman getting the abortion rather than the man who made it necessary?

There are many reasons for that, some more obvious than others. Many are mostly unspoken and indirect. There are those who simply oppose abortion because it removes consequences from promiscuous sex. If abortion had nothing to do with promiscuity, I doubt they would be as vocal.

There are also those who see abortion as a means of hindering the kind of population growth that they prefer. I’ve noted before how certain religious sects indirectly benefit by discouraging abortion. People with large, unplanned families are more likely to be in poverty and people in poverty are more likely to be uneducated. A less educated population tends to benefit certain people and anti-abortion is just an indirect way of pursuing those benefits.

In both cases, the issue isn’t entirely about abortion. It’s about the effects it leads to.

It’s understandable why that component of the anti-abortion stance don’t mention vasectomies. It’s for that reason I feel the question should be asked to those who don’t fall under that domain.

If abortion truly is a matter of life and death, as many anti-abortion activists sincerely believe, then shouldn’t any measure be on the table? A vasectomy, in this context, could both save life and ensure that no life is unnecessarily lost. Why not be more vocal about it?

For men concerned about fathering unwanted children, it wouldn’t be too hard a sell. If anti-abortion organizations even offered to pay for men in poverty to get vasectomies who wanted them, then wouldn’t that reduce abortion?

I don’t ask these questions to be facetious. With the abortion issue sure to face upheavals in the next few years, I think these sorts of questions are worth confronting. The longer the go unaddressed, the worse the abortion debate will get, along with the myriad of effects that surround it.