HB, I think vasectomies are viewed much like a JW having a job requiring they carry a gun...loss of privileges.
Here are all or some of the articles over the years:
Christians do well to weigh such indications that God esteems their reproductive ability. Each couple must determine if and when they will employ appropriate methods of family planning. Granted, their decision would be particularly telling if there were confirmed medical assurances that mother or child faced grave medical risks, even a probability of death, with a future pregnancy. Some in that situation have reluctantly submitted to a sterilization procedure as described earlier to make sure that no pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother (who may already have other children) or that of a child who might later be born with a life-threatening health problem.
But Christians who are not facing such an unusual and distinct risk would certainly want to use ‘soundness of mind’ and shape their thinking and deeds by God’s esteem for reproductive potential. (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8; 2:2, 5-8) This would reflect mature sensitivity to Scriptural indications. Yet, what if it became publicly known that a Christian blithely disregarded God’s evaluations? Would not others doubt whether he (or, she) was a good example, having a reputation of making decisions in harmony with the Bible? Such a disturbing blemish on one’s reputation could, of course, affect a minister’s being qualified for special privileges of service, though that might not be so if one had in ignorance had this procedure performed.—1 Timothy 3:7.
"Surgical attempts to reconnect the [vas deferens] have a success rate of at least 40 percent, and there is some evidence that greater success may be achieved with improved microsurgical techniques. Nevertheless, sterilization by means of vasectomy should be considered permanent." (EncyclopædiaBritannica) "Sterilization should be regarded as a permanent procedure. Despite what the patient may have heard about reversal, reanastomosis is expensive, and success cannot be guaranteed. For women who undergo reversal of tubal sterilization, the risk of ectopic pregnancy is high."—ContemporaryOB/GYN, June 1998.
Since the Christian Greek Scriptures give no direct guidance on such matters, Christians must make personal decisions about limiting the size of their family and about birth control. As to sterilization, they should bear in mind that even though a reversal is theoretically more possible now than it was a decade ago, physicians cannotguarantee that reproductive ability can be restored.
Above all, a couple should keep a clear conscience before Jehovah and toward their fellow Christians. If a couple is thinking of sterilization as a form of birth control, they still should consider any effect their actions may have on others. Though married couples do not usually publicize their decision about birth control, if it became widely known that a couple had resorted to voluntary sterilization, would the congregation be greatly upset and lose respect for them? (1 Timothy 3:2, 12, 13) These are factors to consider very seriously, even in this private and personal matter. In the final analysis, Paul’s statement is appropriate: "To his own master [Jehovah] he stands or falls."—Romans 14:4, 10-12.
In the case of sterilization, such as by a vasectomy, the decision is one of personal conscience, since this is not directly mentioned in the Bible. "Each one will carry his own load." (Galatians 6:5) And as there are various methods of birth control, medical guidance can help a couple decide whether they wish to employ a particular one or not.
What of the man who submits to sterilization due to his wife’s endangered state? It is not his body that has a weakened womb. Still, if his conscience allows for sterilization, he might prefer to be the one to suffer the operation, rather than have his wife undergo further surgery. His conscience might or might not allow him to do so.
What is here presented is not to be taken as indicating any encouragement whatsoever toward sterilization, even as we cannot encourage the use of contraceptive methods by couples seeking to avoid having children. The responsibility for whatever consequences or adverse side effects may result, whether at the present time or in the future, must rest with those making the decision. Sterilization, like a hysterectomy, is a serious step, since human ability to reverse its effects is very slight indeed.
The qualifying for congregational responsibility on the part of a man who approves of sterilization due to his wife’s endangered state, then, is one that must be weighed in the light of Bible principles by the local body of elders. Does his life pattern as a whole show that he has deep respect for God’s Word or does he make light of its counsel? Does he show himself to be conscientious and serious in his decisions? IfhismotiveinapprovingofsterilizationwereduetolackofrespectforGod’sstandards,thisdisrespectfulattitudewouldlikelybemanifestinotherwaysaswell. On the other hand, if he measures up to the Scriptural requirements for those having congregational responsibility as set forth in 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1 and other texts, then the fact that his conscience allows for surgical sterilization as a life-protecting measure need not of itself disqualify him. Of course, the attitude of the congregation must be considered. If the matter became an issue of such proportion that it distracted measurably it could seriously limit his ability to serve with effectiveness. Weighing these factors, the elders should then make their decision.
Whether called "temporary" or not, just what is the Bible view of sterilization? God did not allow sterilization among the Israelites. To the contrary, he forbade his nation to make eunuchs, saying: "No man castrated by crushing the testicles or having his male member cut off may come into the congregation of Jehovah." (Deut 23:1) Further, he gave laws that protected the reproductive powers. If a married woman endangered the reproductive powers of a man in a fight, she was severely punished for her act.—Deut. 25:11, 12.
It is true that Christians are not under the requirements of the Mosaic law. (Rom. 6:14) But does one really want to know God’s thinking on the matter of sterilization? The above information is the only indication we have in the Bible. Those who are spiritually mature deeply appreciate having insight into God’s view so they can guide their steps accordingly. True, to some persons sterilization might seem to be a course that would require less in the way of self-control or would avoid the dangers associated with pregnancy for a woman in poor health, but note the attitude reflected in Psalm 143:10: "Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Your spirit is good; may it lead me in the land of uprightness." Mature Christians today manifest that same attitude in making their decisions.
. Sterilization, whether temporary or permanent, for the specific purpose of birth control would Scripturally be wrong. (For details, see TheWatchtower of December 1, 1961, pages 734, 735.)
What does sterilization of human creatures mean? It means an operation performed for the purpose of depriving a man or a woman of the power of reproduction. TheEncyclopediaAmericana tells us that many methods of sterilization might with greater propriety be called asexualization, since they have certain "harmful effects, both physical and mental." In the case of men the general methods now employed are to remove a portion of a man’s seminal duct by means of which the seed of reproduction is transmitted to the female. In the case of women, it is generally the removal of a portion of the woman’s Fallopian tubes by which her ovum or egg cell is transported to the womb. So sterilization is a destroying of a person’s ability to reproduce his kind by inhibiting the functions of the sex organs implanted by Jehovah God or even by removing the organs.—See Americana, 1929 edition.
With whom did sterilization originate? Today in the United States of America the sterilization of certain persons is actually ordered by a positive legal enactment for reasons of eugenics or therapeutic effects or punishment. In 1907 the State of Indiana passed the first sterilization law, and other American states have since passed similar laws. What is the main object of such legislation? It is to prevent procreation by persons who are habitual criminals or who are feeble-minded or insane. The argument for it is thus seen to be the protecting of society from the breeding of criminally inclined or mentally unbalanced or incapable children. For this reason those states that enacted such sterilization laws felt justified in destroying or interfering with God-given functions to which a creature has a natural right.
Not to criticize states that operate by such sterilization laws, but for our own information we ask, Is such legislation based on God’s law given to his theocratic organization? Did sterilization originate with the organization of his people? Or does it have its origin in this world of which the above states are a part?
Why would God want to destroy a natural function that he put in man and woman for a valid purpose? How could God consistently be the author of a law that ordered or permitted sterilization when he excluded eunuchs from his congregation or forbade his chosen nation of Israel to make eunuchs, that it might have emasculated male Israelites who would be safe bedroom attendants upon Israelite women or be trustworthy in other positions of responsibility? God did not approve of that way of getting guards for the women’s quarters. "No man castrated by crushing the testicles or having his male member cut off may come into the congregation of Jehovah," says Deuteronomy 23:1. Those organs have to do with the seed of reproduction. In harmony with this no member of high priest Aaron’s family could serve at God’s temple as a priest if he was damaged in that way. (Lev. 21:16-21) God wanted priests who could become father to other priests; he wanted Israelites who could produce other Israelites.
God is the Giver of reproductive powers to human creatures; he set the example by making laws for the protection of these powers. His law stated: "Soul will be for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Deut. 19:21) But now suppose a woman’s husband got into a fight with another man. In order to protect her husband and keep him from being whipped or defeated, she reached out and grabbed hold of the other man’s private parts in order to put him out of action! By doing this, the woman doubtless ruined the man’s reproductive powers; she violated God’s law that was against the crushing of a man’s testicles and made this man unfit for God’s congregation. This woman could not argue that she was using jujitsu and acting in defense of her husband and thus for her own self-protection. She had to be punished! How?
She had destroyed the reproductive powers of a fellow Israelite. Well, then, did God order her Fallopian tubes to be cut or her sex organs ruined to prevent her from having children? Or, on the basis of like for like, did God say that, since she had ruined the husband of another woman, so her own husband should have his private parts crushed by the wife of the man whose privates she crushed? Did God say to sterilize her or her husband in order to prevent the reproduction of criminals? God’s law respected her and her husband’s reproductive powers, for it said: "You must then amputate her hand. Your eye must feel no sorrow." (Deut. 25:11, 12) God’s law said this thing right after it had approved of brother-in-law marriage within a family. This law specified that the man who refused to perform brother-in-law marriage toward his dead brother’s widow should be publicly disgraced, for refusing to give his brother’s widow a child in the name of his dead brother.—Deut. 25:5-10.
All this gives us some idea of how God feels when a person or a nation dedicated to him tampers with the reproductive organs, preventing their normal function. It is true that the Mosaic law containing the above provisions was done away with in Christ, but God has not changed his attitude on sterilization. The sense, the force, the basic, inherent idea and purport of the above laws remain in effect with respect to Christians, who are under a law even higher than that given through Moses. A dedicated Christian is under the law of loving Jehovah God with the whole heart, mind, soul and strength. The force and effect of sterilization is against this, as sterilization harmfully affects the asexualized person physically and mentally. A Christian is not a habitual criminal or an imbecile that needs to be sterilized.
If a doctor claims that for a wife to have another child it would mean the death of her, then what? Then there is another way to prevent her conception, which conception might bring her life in jeopardy, than by violating the law of God, the whole tenor of which is contrary to deliberate asexualizing of a man or woman. If parents are living in poverty and could not afford to have another child, then there is another way to take care of this economic situation than by ruining those organs with which the perfect man and woman were endowed and which enter so strongly into the noble purposes of married life. There is the need for exercising the spirit of the Lord God, one of the fruits of which is self-control.—Gal. 5:22, 23.
When a Christian understands the good purpose for which self-control must be exercised, then it appears to him reasonable and he is strengthened to exercise it, with the aid of God’s spirit.
We can be guided in this matter by the principle that is set down in the law of God given through Moses. We know that if any member of the priestly family of Aaron had broken testicles he could not serve as a priest; also, no person sexually mutilated could enter into the congregation of Jehovah. And God so cared for the procreative organs of the male that if any woman took part in a fight between her husband and another man and reached out and grabbed that man by his privates to disable him, she was to have her hand cut off. (Lev. 21:17-20; Deut. 23:1; 25:11, 12) So if God was concerned about the procreative powers of his typical people of Israel, he must likewise be so about those of his spiritual Israelites, because he authorizes them to be parents and bring up offspring in the fear of God.
If anyone was sexually sterilized before coming to a knowledge of the truth and he survived Armageddon, it would require a miracle from God through Christ the King of mankind to enable such sterilized person to take part then in fulfilling the procreation mandate.
There are several other methods used today to avoid parenthood, and on these the Society remains silent, leaving each married couple to make their own decision. (See TheWatchtower, March 1, 1951, page 159; April 1, 1953, page 222.) However, it is absolutely wrong for a person to think that in order to stay free for the Kingdom service and avoid family responsibilities in the way of children he is justified in getting himself sexually sterilized. If he is so desirous of avoiding family responsibilities, then let him stay single, and thus, as Jesus said, make himself a eunuch for the sake of God’s kingdom. (Matt. 19:12) A person who has himself sterilized does an injustice to his marriage partner who may at some time want and be entitled to children. He may think he is thus making himself free from trials and temptation by the Devil in this respect, but he is exposing himself to other trials and temptations in this very same respect. It is best to live a normal life with all the powers and faculties God has given a creature physically.
If one was sterilized before understanding the truth, then let him draw comfort from Isaiah 56:3-7.