VOTED
🇳🇱
No not too extreme at all. This seems reasonable. I assume it works both ways and a woman needs to do the same.
@freemo Maybe, maybe not, after all, a woman can only create one child at a time, a man is unlimited
@taur10 Which is exactly why it would make sense to **only** do this on a woman.
If every man in the world had his tubes tied and just one manages to slip through he could impregnate as many women as he can have sex with, producing hundreds of children per month. So you need perfect 100% coverage to be effective.
However a single woman, as you point out, can at most produce one baby every 9 months. So even partial coverage of women would be significantly effective without needing complete coverage.
This is the same reason why in animals the focus is on spaying and not neutering because dollar for dollar, case for case, it is much more effective.
To put it another way. If 0% of men are steralized and 90% of women, and people are having sex as often as possible on both sides, then 90% of pregnancies are prevented.
If 0% of women are steralized and 90% of men in the same scenario then 0 pregnancies are prevented.
@freemo @taur10 It's not about math. It's about *consent* and bodily autonomy. Nice red herring, though.