Mandatory Birth Control for All Girls

[Skwim]

The question arose from another thread that was bouncing the subject around.

If it was possible to safely make all girls "unimpregnantable" from puberty until they're at least 18, and make it mandatory, would you be

For it ?

​

Or not?

 

[Terese]

Girls this young are not ready to take care of another being, when their own life has just begun. college, money, etc are demanded on young adults. I'm for it.

 

[columbus]

I could not vote for that with the mandatory part.
Maybe strongly encouraged, nearly the default like circumcision used to be. Depending on how it's handled.
But mandatory? No way.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

I could not vote for that with the mandatory part.
Maybe strongly encouraged, nearly the default like circumcision used to be. Depending on how it's handled.
But mandatory? No way.
Tom

What do you see as the downside?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's a no for me, for a few reasons.
Much of this comes down to details on what type of birth control, etc. For example, an IUD is invasive, and can have hormonal impacts, etc. They shouldn't be forced on anyone. I'd be strongly against such a thing. But assuming it was more just a 'magic wand hypothetical', I'd suggest the following;

1) Birth control isn't the responsibility of the woman (alone) whereas this would enforce the notion that it is
2) Birth control certainly isn't the only reason for wearing a condom, and I'd envisage a sky rocketing rate of herpes, AIDS, etc if this were in place

 

[psychoslice]

I heard people say that the young today know it all, they know about sex, and anything else you can think of. but sadly they know nothing, if they knew about sex then they would know how not to bring a child into their know it all world !!.

 

[columbus]

What do you see as the downside?

Who knows what the physical downsides might be. There is no such thing as a 100% safe medical procedure. I also see potential problems with the social aspects of assuming that the "problem" of irresponsible sex is dealt with, when there are plenty of other problems associated with irresponsible sex.
But the bottom line is giving society the right to invade people's lives and bodies to fix something that isn't broken is not something I could support under any circumstances I can imagine. I have a little trouble with mandatory vaccine shots.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

It's a no for me, for a few reasons.
Much of this comes down to details on what type of birth control, etc. For example, an IUD is invasive, and can have hormonal impacts, etc.

As I said twice, "Safe, Mandatory"

They shouldn't be forced on anyone. I'd be strongly against such a thing. But assuming it was more just a 'magic wand hypothetical', I'd suggest the following;

1) Birth control isn't the responsibility of the woman (alone) whereas this would enforce the notion that it is

Actually, being mandatory, it wouldn't be the responsibility of the girl (alone). Or the responsibility of the girl at all.

2) Birth control certainly isn't the only reason for wearing a condom, and I'd envisage a sky rocketing rate of herpes, AIDS, etc if this were in place

I didn't mention anything about condoms being unessential.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, as I said in the other thread:

Why focus on girls? Tie the boy's tubes, give them hormone blockers or anti-androgens until they're 18.

Or make boys wear male chastity devices.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As I said twice, "Safe, Mandatory"

Yes. Which I can allow for, as a hypothetical. But any actual consideration of this as a 'thing' would mean we'd have to consider the nature of the contraception itself.

Actually, being mandatory, it wouldn't be the responsibility of the girl (alone). Or the responsibility of the girl at all.

But it's the girls you are making unimpregnantable, rather than the boys sterile. And my hypothesis is that this would lead to a mental shift in adolescent boys to seeing birth control as the woman's responsibility. And once they hit 18, there is consideration of responsibility.

I didn't mention anything about condoms being unessential.

No. But one of their 2 key functions is going to be magically catered for. I estimate that this would lead to a reduction in condom use.

 

[Skwim]

Who knows what the physical downsides might be.

As I said twice: "Safe, Mandatory"

There is no such thing as a 100% safe medical procedure.

Okay, you refuse to accept my given premise. What can I say?

I also see potential problems with the social aspects of assuming that the "problem" of irresponsible sex is dealt with, when there are plenty of other problems associated with irresponsible sex.

Go ahead, start your list.

Problem

1.
2.
3.
4
5.​

But the bottom line is giving society the right to invade people's lives and bodies to fix something that isn't broken is not something I could support under any circumstances I can imagine.

"Something that isn't broken"? You don't think teen pregnancies is a problem?

​

"Every week"!

 

[Quintessence]

I'd prefer better accessibility and cost coverage of all forms of birth control for all men and women. If that was universally present, in theory such draconian measures would be unnecessary. The service would basically be free to anyone who wanted it, and available to all. Mandatory birth control I only support for controlling human overpopulation, which, granted, is currently a problem.

 

[Skwim]

Well, as I said in the other thread:

Or make boys wear male chastity devices.

But it's the girls you are making unimpregnantable, rather than the boys sterile

Thought of this, but the problem with making males incapable of impregnating girls is that one would have to extend it up to who knows what age.

No. But one of their 2 key functions is going to be magically catered for. I estimate that this would lead to a reduction in condom use.

Very possible, but I don't see the possible risk that comes with less usage of condoms outweighing unimpregnantable girls.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Girls this young are not ready to take care of another being, when their own life has just begun. college, money, etc are demanded on young adults. I'm for it.

Girls younger than that have been bringing new life into the world for the majority of human existence. And people are usually in college dealing with money long after 18, should we extend it to 22? That's when science says most human bodies are done growing. Though most people are still in college then. 25?

This all seems pretty arbitrary to me. Which is why I dislike mandatory fertility restrictions. Too often too inflexible.

 

[Terese]

Girls younger than that have been bringing new life into the world for the majority of human existence. And people are usually in college dealing with money long after 18, should we extend it to 22? That's when science says most human bodies are done growing. Though most people are still in college then. 25?

This all seems pretty arbitrary to me. Which is why I dislike mandatory fertility restrictions. Too often too inflexible.

This is about the 'right choice'. This isn't the 15th century. its the 21st century. You think there are girls younger than 18 who want to become a mother immediately? As for extending it to 22, that's not necessary. 18 would be the minimum, of birth control. I'm only talking about girls younger than 18. after that they would be free to have a baby.

 

[Skwim]

Girls younger than that have been bringing new life into the world for the majority of human existence.

And almost always with the help of the rest of the tribe or tribal village. Many girls in the USA living in a tribe or tribal village?

This all seems pretty arbitrary to me. Which is why I dislike mandatory fertility restrictions. Too often too inflexible.

The only realistic arbitrary age here is the upper limit of 18, but if there's a good argument for some other upper age limit that's just fine.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

On principal I don't like society making fertility choices for others or taking away bodily autonomy. There's all sorts of 'for the greater good' restrictions I'm sure lots of people would go for. Make it so teens can't get pregnant, make it so people below poverty can't get pregnant, make it so people with certain inheritable defects or disease can't get pregnant. But it all sounds too dystopian for me.

I've met plenty of teen moms who have the support network and a will to make a family and a healthy home for children. I don't know their situation. I won't presume to know what's best for them.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This is about the 'right choice'. This isn't the 15th century. its the 21st century. You think there are girls younger than 18 who want to become a mother immediately? As for extending it to 22, that's not necessary. 18 would be the minimum, of birth control. I'm only talking about girls younger than 18. after that they would be free to have a baby.

Nah this is about 'the greater good' which is so often lacking in any sort of clarity. Why 18? The age of sexual consent in most states, heck most of the world, is 16. And our bodies aren't done growing until 22, and there's no reason to think a 15 or 16 year old would be more medically compromised than a 35 year old, but we don't limit their fertility 'for the greater good.' Even younger in some countries. And depending on their family life and where they're at, they might be better able to raise a kid at 17 than me at 31. What about people with less money? Or no money? Or a disorder which would make them higher risk?
What is our justification for this being a necessity?

 

[Terese]

Nah this is about 'the greater good' which is so often lacking in any sort of clarity. Why 18? The age of sexual consent in most states, heck most of the world, is 16. And our bodies aren't done growing until 22, and there's no reason to think a 15 or 16 year old would be more medically compromised than a 35 year old, but we don't limit their fertility 'for the greater good.' Even younger in some countries. And depending on their family life and where they're at, they might be better able to raise a kid at 17 than me at 31. What about people with less money? Or no money? Or a disorder which would make them higher risk?
What is our justification for this being a necessity?

This deals with society. In our society, it is not normal to see a 16 year old pregnant. It's considered unfortunate. Biological discussions are moot here. We are talking about lives. typically, a woman of 31 is better choice for a mother than 16. More experience with the world is valuable. There are exceptions, but the child will simply have to wait to turn 18. It's like drinking laws. Plus the human population is growing at a very concerning rate. Sterilization of some kind is fine imo.

 

[Skwim]

On principal I don't like society making fertility choices for others or taking away bodily autonomy.

You do realize, don't you, that US government has seen fit to allow our bodies to be deliberately exposed to a whole list of chemicals, such as antioxidants, fluoride, Humectants, Orthophenyl phenol, Acetylated distarch phosphate, Formaldehyde, Sodium ethyl para-hydroxybenzoate, Acesulfame potassium, Dehydroacetic acid, Ammonium hydroxide, Hydroxypropyl cellulose, Magnesium stearate, Polyvinylpolypyrrolidone, etc, etc.

And all states require various immunizations for children before allowed to enter school, such those against Hepatitis B, DTaP/Td/Tdap, Polio, MMR, and Varicella

So much for any "bodily autonomy."


.