Since the beginning of time, it is women who have been given responsibility for their sexuality, fertility and for taking steps to control whether or not they procreate. We'll put aside for now the fact that we are blamed for being raped or sexually assaulted, and are routinely told that we provoked or brought such violent attacks on ourselves - this is just about reproduction.

We are told to keep our legs shut, called whores and expected to foot the bill for contraception that can often have a wide range of side-effects. Men are the most vocal and vociferous anti-choice activists, and pro-choice women often come under attack from these self-righteous, often middle-aged windbags who tell us that we should accept the consequences of our actions.

The problem is that it takes two to tango, and often the pill, the coil and even condoms can fail. Rapists tend not to have consequences at the top of their agenda when they are forcing themselves on women, and as such we are left to carry a child/human/foetus/embryo/mass of cells that we had no say in creating. When it comes to avoiding unwanted pregnancies, why is there not more onus on the responsibility of men? Various male contraceptive pills have been trialled over the years, but as of yet none have come to fruition because of the devastating side effects that came with them (incidentally, the same side effects that we women put up with).

But what if there was a better solution? In order to avoid pregnancy as a result of rape, incest, or accident, I would like to suggest vasectomies for all.

Women can continue to use contraception and, of course, to prevent sexually transmitted infections, one should always use a condom, but to further eliminate the need for any more discussion on the issue of abortion- I propose that every man has his tubes tied. Hysterectomies are too invasive, carry many associated dangers, and are generally not reversible. A vasectomy however can be done under a local anaesthetic, is straightforward and simple, and most importantly can be reversed- well most of the time anyway.

At the age of 13, every man should undergo this procedure and his tubes should remain tied until he is in a long-term and stable relationship. At this point, and after much discussion and negotiation with the woman, he may apply to a specially established board to request the untying of his tubes. A contract must be drawn up that will specify things such as what happens if the couple splits up, baby-sitting responsibilities, nappy-changing duties, the contribution of money and the division of child-related chores. Once the contract has been drawn up, both parties must sign it and then after the mandatory 30-day cooling-off period, his tubes may be untied and procreation may commence. After the woman becomes pregnant, he must undergo the procedure again until such time that a decision is made regarding the creation of siblings.

Whilst these measures will not put an end to rape, incest or abuse, it would eliminate instances of women being forced to carry their rapist's child, or else seek illegal or costly abortions abroad. It would also mean that dead-beat baby daddies would be unable to shirk their responsibilities, or do a runner after a one-night-stand that results in the woman becoming pregnant. It would protect women and their rights, promote equality and ensure that men's bodies are just as controlled as those of women. It would eradicate the concept of an unwanted pregnancy by ensuring that everyone involved is willing, ready and has given their full consent. By providing contractual obligations it also ensures that, should the relationship dissolve end, the rights of the man, woman and the child are always protected. To me, it sounds like the perfect solution.

If pro-life men are so obsessed with responsibility, protecting 'THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN' and micromanaging the whole process of reproduction, then I would assume they would be in full agreement with this proposal. If they truly care about the life of the innocent, then they would not hesitate to undergo this procedure to add another layer of protection to the sanctity of life and family.

But, of course, this will never happen and the abuse I will receive as a result of even daring to suggest that control is exerted over the body of a man, will be a testament to the fact that 90 per cent of resistance towards the decriminalisation of abortion is nothing more than a festering hatred of women being able to decide their own destiny. These men huff and puff and chastise us for not being responsible, but when it comes to actually doing something about it, they would rather die than take any action themselves towards responsibility. Instead we are expected to deal with the consequences of their actions - as well as ours - but we are not allowed to decide what the final outcome is.

Obviously, this article is written completely tongue in cheek and I am just trying to show that it is so easy to exert control over a woman, her body and her choice, but any suggestion of a similar level of control over a man will be met with outrage. This whole debate is completely shrouded in hypocrisy and while, yes, the father does have a say over whether to abort or continue with the pregnancy, the ultimate decision is with the woman. Unless men are prepared to consider my proposal, or a 100 per cent effective form of contraception is discovered and made mandatory with the same implementation procedures as the above, I will kindly remind you to keep your nose, opinions judgements out of my uterus unless I specifically ask for them.