The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points

WhyWould it be better if all humans were fixed around the age of 12?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 795 times Debate No: 20924
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)




now don't freak out on me. serious question. Ok getting your tubes tied or having a vasectomy can all be reversed. there for my view is before humans start to reproduce they are fixed. When the time comes that a person wishes to or desires a child they reverse it. i feel this is a decent human way to deal with the earth population and eliminate all teen pregnancies. plus it would greatly reduce the the number of woman and men on welfare and other government support. increase the number of students to finish high school even go to college. people would have to a chance to improve their quality of life be fore being burdened with a child. i bring forth any person to provide a list of possible cons from such an action


PRO is making a dangerous assumption here.

PRO assumes that not having your tubes tied (or vasectamy) means more people will be on welfare and government support and more people will drop out of school. PRO also assumes that tying your tubes will increase your quality of life.

Firstly, having your tubes tied does not solve the welfare problem. For example, if you have alot of poor people, and they all tie their tubes, the amount of people on welfare will not decrease. It would stay the same, as you still need to give welfare to these people. This is not an effective solution. Therefore, this argument is invalid.

Secondly, high school drop outs will not change with the amount of people tying their tubes. There will still be people dropping out for other reasons that are not related to pregnancy. Forcing kids to tie their tubes will not solve this issue. This issue will still be present. Therefore, this argument is also invalid.

Lastly, having your tubes tied does not guarantee an increase in quality of life. Once again, Pro makes an assumption. Pro wants you to believe that tying your tubes will instantly improve your quality of life, but that is false. Therefore, as there is no guarantee, this argument is invalid.


1. Condoms

PRO's main argument is birth control. However, this can be done through several other ways like condoms and sponges that do not require surgery.

2. Parental Consent

For children to undergo surgery, their parents must give consent. Not every parent will give consent for vasectamy because of several reasons, most importantly, religion. PRO does not explain how we will deal with such cases.

3. Cost

Having your tubes tied then untied later is very costly. Not all families can afford this operation, where there is a much cheaper alternative, such as condoms.

As a result, people should not be fixed around the age of 12.
Debate Round No. 1


i will start with a few facts involving unplanned pregnancy with teens.
How many teens are becoming pregnant?

Despite declines in rates of teen pregnancy in the U.S., about 820,000 teens become pregnant each year. That means that 34 percent of teenagers have at least one pregnancy before they turn 20.
79 percent of teenagers who become pregnant are unmarried.
Utah's teen pregnancy rate is high, as well as Southern teen pregnancy but these are areas where women still get married prior to the age of 20 with some regularity (although this is changing).
80 percent of teenage pregnancies are unintended.
Nearly four in ten teenage girls whose first intercourse experience happened at 13 or 14 report that the sex was unwanted or involuntary.
The main rise in the teen pregnancy rate is among girls younger than 15*
Close to 25 percent of teen mothers have a second child within two years of the first birth.*

Social, educational and financial costs of teen pregnancy

The United State spends $7 billion each year due to the costs of teen pregnancy.
Only one-third of teenage mothers complete high school and receive their diplomas
By age 30, only 1.5 percent of women who had pregnancies as a teenager have a college degree.
80 percent of unmarried teen mothers end up on welfare
Within the first year of becoming teen mothers, one-half of unmarried teen mothers go on welfare.*
The daughters of teen mothers are 22 percent more likely than their peers to become teen mothers.
Sons of teenaged mothers have a 13 percent greater chance of ending up in prison as compared to their peers.

How much greater is the U.S. teen pregnancy rate than other countries?*

Greater teen pregnancy rates translate into higher abortion in the United States for the industrialized world.
The U.S. has twice the teen pregnancy rate as Canada
Both Germany and France have a teen pregnancy rate that is four times lower than the U.S.
Japan's teen pregnancy rate is eight times lower the United States

now that i have listed a bunch of fact numbers lets review. see that welfare line above disputes his would decrease people on welfare argument for statistic point of view it would by like you know all but 20% of teenagers. in theory to the number of current teen pregnancies 820,000 a year a third don't finish school so that could be what 270,000 more people to possibly graduate school. college is less that 1.6 percent of teen mother for attending so whats that passably 780,000 more people who might choose to go. and none of those number or statistics listed above included father and what they might do. it was solely mothers.

now lets talk cost cause your not the first guy to mention that to me for this. a single mother of 1 child will receive 150 a month for welfare. the cost of getting fixed is about 1000.00 American dollars so it would be very simple to pay for considering the amount the government wouldn't pay out each month to those would be parents. well seems to me that pays for it pretty quickly.
you spoke of better living well if it was world proto-call to fix all people then everyone would have a chance to figure out what they want in life be fore being burdened with a kid. seriously 48% of all pregnancies in America allow are unplanned for. meaning basically they disrupted the course the individuals responsible for the child's live in some fashion. Perceivable for the worst since they figured personal they were not ready for such an event.

the arguer wasted time commenting on parent consent what consent it's world policy no arguing, no the kids want parent don't they just do it.
he talked about the current form of birth control and mine is extreme no it's not it's practical since none of the other re honestly working. did you know that in America less than 12 percent of unplanned pregnancies are the result of no birth control. or that less than 52% of unplanned pregnancies are the result of only one birth control method. yep thats right people are trying not to have kids but are any ways. why because it fails hell even 1 in 1000 tube tieing fail to keep nothing is absolute. but 1 in a 1000 from natural reversal of a sterilizing procedure sure is better than 4 out of ten. i can do math can you.


Now PRO gives a whole bunch of unsupported facts.
First let me point out a few flaws in his arguments.


Forcing people to be fixed by age 12 is not the solution. To lower teen pregnancy, we must educate people. That will solve the problem. We cannot simply go and force people to get their tubes tied because that is a severe infringement on rights of children.


PRO is assuming that everyone before the age of 12 will have sex, resulting in pregnancy. There are two false reasonings within this statement. Firstly, there is a limited amount of people who will have sex by 12. Secondly, there will be an even smaller amount of people who are even matured enough through puberty to be able to reproduce. So the number is very small of pregnancies by the age of 12.

Therefore, it is not a viable solution to fix every person by 12, as only a tiny portion of the population will have sex and be able to reproduce. As a result, it is much better to educate this population, rather than forcing everyone to get their tubes tied.


Fixing people by age 12 will not solve the issue of college drop outs and people who do not choose to attend college. There will always be people who do not choose to attend college, perhaps for personal reasons, whether or not their tubes are tied. Therefore, PRO's entire "school" argument is invalid.


PRO talks alot about how people can figure out about life before being burdened with a child by having their tubes tied. However, again, this can be done by investing in educating this population. Educating these people on sex will teach them the morals and consequences of sex, rather than preventing pregnancy altogether. This is a much better solution.

Imagine this scenario. You teach a child not to play with matches, you educate them. PRO's solution is to remove the matches altogether, so that the child will not play with them.

My solution, to educate is much better. The child knows not to play with matches. Therefore, the next time he sees matches, he will know not to play with them. In PRO's case, the child will not know this, as he was never taught. He will play with the matches.

As a result, my solution to educate is much better than PRO's solution. As soon as you untie those tubes, the issue of unplanned pregnancy will still be around. My solution will prevent this.


Now PRO believes that cost is not a big factor. Please keep in mind the reversal cost.

The cost to reverse a vasectamy can range up to $10, 000 dollars. Many families cannot afford this, however, want a child. Therefore, it is not fair to impose this price on every family.


PRO drops my second argument completely. Many parents do not want their children to undergo surgery, especially at such a young age, because it is dangerous.

In fact, annually, around 90,000 deaths in the US alone are attributed to surgical errors. If it is world policy, it would in fact kill much more people. It is immoral to force people to undergo such a dangerous procedure. Undergoing surgery mutliple times (tying, then untying to have kids) will in fact increase the chances of a surgical error.

Also, there are many religions opposed to fixing, which PRO did not talk about.


Pro in fact agrees that tube tying is not absolute: "even 1 in 1000 tube tieing fail"
Therefore, his entire argument about the world population is invalid.


If people really don't want kids and birth control fails, then they can always turn to abortion. This will solve the minority of the cases where people are old enough to reproduce and have sex, rather than generalizing the entire teen population by assuming they will have sex and fixing them. This is still a better solution than PRO's solution.


Pro does not address the case where couples might want multiple children in different gaps of time. Does PRO assume that they will tie their tubes, untie, tie, and untie again? This is a dangerous procedure and costly. Frankly, it does not make any practical sesne to undergo the same operation several times.


Because of all these reasons it is obvious that PRO has a weak case. As a result, I have won.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2


are sources for my earlier rounds

i will now combat all the opposing arguments from my opponent.

1 my opponent claims fixing humans sexual reproductive organs is infringement of children rights and that we only need to honestly educate people.
we have been educating people for the last 50 years with out much success in a decrease in unplanned pregnancies

2: i never said that every one before the age of 12 will have sex. how ever seeing as how it';s impossible to predict which people will and and which wont eliminate the problem completely by fixing them all. secondly it's not about the people who will have sex prior to turning 12 it's about that they will start becoming more likely to have sex. truth is 15-16 are the leading age of teenage mothers but if we waited until they were that age why would already be having kids or of had them it's an issue of when what age would benefit the most or reducing the most unplanned pregnancies and that is 12. yes some children have sex at as early as 8 but not a common enough problem to start the procedure that soon.

3:my opponent again twists words stating that my number represent that all people would instead o to college. i assure you this was never part of my statement. however it has been researched and document that mothers of unplanned pregnancies are more likely to not finish high school or ever attend college. then making my statement that more people would attend college true.

4:i don't want to bother with this statement much further than he again states education is a work able solution and we should trust in it. even uses the matches and a small child as an example. i encourage all votes to go tell a child between 10-14 about matches and the danger of them. then hand them a book of them and walk away for an hour. return how many of those children still have all the matches?

con then referrers to the untieing of tubes and the issue of unplanned pregnancies will still be around? this statement is totally absurd as the only reason people would untie their tubes would be to have a child.

5. Again my opponent want to involve cost which has already been dismissed as to the money saved by welfare would pay for it. none of this would cost any person anything as it would all come from the government. and i assure you 10,000 dollars is a false number it's closer to 1,800. A mother of one child receive national average 2,600 a year. a single year worth of not paying welfare to a single person cover both the fixing and the untieing cost. not to mention the 7 billion the government wold spend each year due to teenager pregnancies. 7 billion a year that pays for 7 million people getting fixed or unfixed alone.

6. con would argue that parents don't want to have there children have surgery. i am aware of this first these two procedures both on the male and female are in and out as they say. risk level is no more than a nose or boob job. and ever those get safer everyday as more and more are preformed as would these. back to parents not wanting this done., i would argue that given the opportunity a large percentage of parents or the teens them self (males more often) would prefer the remove of possible babies in there young lives. as for religion issue i would argue that most religions insist no sexual actions until married and even then only for reproducing so the those people have already been breaking one belief of there faith what is another.

if there are too many parents or religious people who still refuse to proceed with the federal laws this bill will pass they shall not be forced any punishment until the fail to control and prevent offspring being produced by there children. at which time we could just impose a sever tax in the number of 150,000 dollars for each person involved meaning four adult parents to teen parents and one new born. and then denied of all government financial assistance for the new mother or father for a minimum of 15 years. is it out landish an harsh absolutely but i bet it would get more kids in that tube tieing chair.

7: just because 1-1000 fail doesn't not make it worth it since 50% of all pregnancies are not planned in America alone that 1 out of 2

8: abortion does stop many babies from being born but obviously not enough o reduce the numbers of pregnancies as for couple wanting more than one child well have them want to time them apart do so and school drop outs people on welfare or any of the other issues i have stated. plus i keep hear my opponent refer to teens this is not just for teenagers this is for all people so no one at 15 or 32 have to have a child if they don't want one.

9: couple wanting more than one child should have them time them apart sure use the other methods of birth control if you wish to wait 5 years or don't. not the issue that those people problems not the governments at that point. the goverment will not fund the second tube tieing

i believe i have argued all most all cons issues void. if he wishes he may have a rebuttal to any of my comments and then if so chooses begin his round of questions that will address in round 4.



1. PRO drops my infringement of children rights arguments.
Exactly, that is the problem. We need to invest more into education, making it more successful. We need to try harder to educate children, maybe even start sex ed at a younger age. Education, as I have explained, is the best method to prevent pregnancies

If you look anywhere
they all say that female education reduces the birth rate.

2. PRO makes a contradiction here. PRO says: "yes some children have sex at as early as 8 but not a common enough problem to start the procedure that soon."

It is also not a common enough procedure that children will have sex at 12 to start the procedure that soon too. By PRO's logic, we should not fix people at 12, because it is not common enough. As a result, PRO concedes the entire debate to me.

Furthermore, PRO drops my argument that by 12, most children have not yet reached puberty and cannot reproduce. Therefore, it is a pointless operation to fix them by 12.

3. PRO misunderstands my refutation. PRO's argument was that we would solve the school drop out situation by fixing people. However, unplanned pregnancies is not the only cause for drop outs, and this would essentially not solve the problem, thus making PRO's argument invalid.

4. PRO misses the point of my argument. I am saying that by not educating the populace, they will not realize the consequences of unplanned pregnancy. Just like not teaching children about matches, they will not realize the danger of them. Therefore, when they see matches, they will play with them, as they have not been taught about it.

Furthermore, yes, the issue of unplanned pregnancy will still be around after the untying of tubes. This is because no one has been educated about the issue of unplanned pregnancy, and untying or tying tubes will not change this fact. Therefore, the populace does not understand the consequences of unplanned pregnancy.

Furthermore, what's to say that a woman cannot simply lie and say that she is planning to have a baby, when she really isn't? Her tubes would be untied, leaving her prone to the issue of unplanend pregnancy as she has not been educated about it well enough.

After a baby has been born, there is also no guarantee that the woman will go back to the hospital to get her tubes retied. Therefore, the issue of unplanned pregnancy would still be around. PRO has not addressed these blatant flaws in his logic.

5. No cost is a huge factor.

Eariler, you said that this would be a world policy. Many governments are not as fortunate as the American government, and cannot afford this procedure for everyone. That is one problem with this resolution that you have not addressed.

Furthermore, 10,000 is not a fake number. Look at the source.
Let's take a look at the numbers.

You say that a single mother gets $2600 on average a year. You must also remember that some countries do not even have welfare, like Kenya (therefore those countries would not save money).

$1000 per man for a vasectamy.
$1000 per woman for a tubal litigation.

It does seem like we save money. However, you must remember the cost to reverse the procedure, $10, 000.

$11,000 per man for a vasectamy and reversal
$11,000 per woman for a tubal litigation and reversal.

PRO also excludes the cost for multiple procedures. PRO said that after pregnancy, the tubes would be retied. Now imagine that a couple decides to have multiple children in a year. That would mean multiple procedures, escalating the cost much higher than the money saved on welfare. Not to mention that this must happen in every country, as it is a world procedure.

Therefore, this resolution induces cost, not saves cost.

6. PRO says that risk level is no more than a boob or nose job. However, children do not get noses or boob jobs (you must be 18). Therefore, there is a true risk for children to undergo a tubal litigation under this resolution.

PRO says that parents do not want their children to have babies and relgions do not advocate sexual actions until marriage, therefore this resolution is a good idea.

However, PRO does not realize that his logic is extremely flawed.

Parents do not want their children to have babies, that is true. However PRO misses the root of this fundamental desire. Parents do not want their children to have sex.

Religions do not advocate sexual actions until marraige.

Both these parties do not want children to have sex (or people until marriage). I would say that tying everyone's tubes would increase sexual activity. When everyone cannot reproduce anymore, more people will have sex because there is no fear of making someone pregnant, which is a huge deterrant in sex.

Therefore, because there is now more people having sex (due to fearlessness that they will not be inpregnated) both these parties will not have their desires met. Children will have sex. Religious people will have sex, because now, they will not be pregnant. Therefore, this resolution will impel more people to have sex, which is not what parents or religious factions want. As a result, they will not allow the fixing of their child.

Furthermore, PRO also talks about a severe fine. This fine is unreasonable. There are many families around the world that cannot afford this fine, and should not be punished simply for reproducing. That is unfair and immoral.

7. PRO's argument is still invalid. PRO's argument is that tube tying will prevent pregnancy. However, he admits himself that some fail, and as a result, it does not prevent pregnancy. Therefore, this argument is invalid.

8. PRO says that "abortion stops many babies from being born."
This is the entire basis of his argument for the resolution. Therefore, he admits there are other solutions other than fixing to prevent pregnancy.

I have proven that abortion is the better solution, as it works in specific cases, rather than generalizing the enitire population of the world that they will have unplanned pregnancy. Therefore, PRO has lost.

9. PRO says: "couple wanting more than one child should have them time them apart sure use the other methods of birth control if you wish to wait 5 years or don't. not the issue that those people problems not the governments at that point. the goverment will not fund the second tube tieing"

Again PRO admits that there are other methods of birth control. I have proven that these methods, such as condoms, work much better as it is safer and cheaper.

PRO also says that the government will not fund the second tube tying. How is this fair at all? Some families cannot afford the operation, so they will not get their tubes tied. Then they'll be fined much more $150,000, as pro says, if they have offspring. This is not fair at all. Therefore, the government must fund the second tube tying in an effort to remain the democratic society that we are.


PRO drops many arguments and makes many assumptions that are not true.

The major issue with this debate is that it is a WORLD policy.

How can we ensure that everyone in the world will undergo this operation?
We cannot. Therefore, this resolution makes no practical sense.

Furthermore, we live in the 21st century, a time where it is not morally right to force anyone to do something against their will.

It is not morally right to force everyone to undergo a dangerous surgery, MULTIPLE TIMES.
As I said, 90,000 deaths in the US alone are from surgical errors. Multiply that by the world, and you have many hundred thousand deaths a year because of this resolution.

That is not right.

Therefore, this resolution shall not pass.

Therefore, vote CON.

Debate Round No. 3


if condoms and education about sex had the results my opponent claimed 50% of American with children wouldn't have been unplanned pregnancies.

I having nothing else to say other than reread round 3 until you can actually wrap your head around it and not distort it to the perverted reality which it isn't


I did not distort anything.

No, what I am saying is that we need to invest more in education so that it would have a greater affect, for the reasons I stated last round.

Furthermore, this is not just about America. This is a world policy, and it has been proven in many developing countries that educating the female population would mean less births.

PRO drops all the arguments I made last round.

I urge a vote for CON.
Debate Round No. 4


noctos forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments. It is obvious that I have won this debate because of all the dropped arguments and forfeit. Vote CON
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
Pro, you should not have dropped all the arguments. That Might have lost you the debate.
Posted by noctos 4 years ago
with the money not donated to welfare funds they could do more research to cure std's./ out side of the std increase i see no down fall
Posted by wmpeebles 4 years ago
This would encourage more pre-marital sex. STDs would be on the rise.

Bad idea all around.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Mak-zie 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Another ridiculous topic put out there but Pro. There was no doubt that Con's arguments were better.
Vote Placed by wmpeebles 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a forfeit, Con generally had stronger arguments