Mandatory Birth Control for All Girls

[ADigitalArtist]

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."


.

So byproducts of industry and agriculture, which we immediately have no tolerance for if it's without voter driven checks and medical checks. Sounds more like an argument against allowing unsafe byproducts than allowing for unrelated unnecessary mandatory medical treatment work (which is what body autonomy is really about.)

Vaccines aren't unnecessary, and are in fact essential for not just the person involved's heath, but the people they expose to should the vaccine fail, they have an allergic reaction, or have contact with someone too young for vaccines. So it's a matter of directly putting other people in harm's way which is not true of all or even most teen pregnancies.
And parents can still choose to homeschool or private school if they're still really opposed.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

Not normal does not equal harmful. We think it's unfortunate because of our prejudices but, as I said, 16 has been the normal age for pregnancy for hundreds of years before now. Frankly I think drinking age is set way too high also, and would not be opposed to lowering it. But there's actual physical evidence drinking causes more harm in early development. There's no evidence that girls are unequipped to handle pregnancy in their mid to late teens, especially if they have a support network.
At any rate, populations aren't increasing in first world nations. They're decreasing. To the extent where some countries are worried about the older generation being too numerous for the younger generation to support. Where population is a huge issue is with poorer countries where having many children is a significant asset to a family's survival. And, as I said, there's no reason to assume a 16 year old because of their age will be able to provide less than a 31 year old if the 31 year old is poor, has no support network, is very unhealthy etc. But we wouldn't say 'generally poor unhealthy people shouldn't have children so we should just sterilize them.'

 

[Terese]

I'll take your opinion into consideration. I wasn't saying young girls are ill-equipped for pregnancy, But the way our society works is that earlier than 18 for having a baby is unwise. I also didn't just mean first world countries. And yes, if a 31 year old was poor in health, either physically or financially, a younger would be ideal. But this is an exception.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It would perhaps be more acceptable, If a way could be found In which both Boys and Girls were infertile in their natural state, but could only procreate when "Switched on".
Procreation should be a positive act. not an accident, chance or forced.

 

[Mycroft]

This actually could be done. With CRISPR CAS-9 Techniques, it could be possible to edit the genes of an unborn female so that she'll only become fertile (whilst still going through puberty normally) when she's 18. And it could be done safely.

 

[leibowde84]

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

If it were 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?

I would certainly support it. I know there will be the tired "promoting/endorsing premarital sex" argument, but I fail to see any merit in that. The benefits would surely outweigh any of the risks.

 

[Demonslayer]

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."

Sure, but that doesn't mean there are no limits right? Requiring immunizations is for public health...the consideration of others. Pregnancy really has no such potential for wide spread public health problems.

There's a nugget of good intention in this idea, but no, we can't mandate contraception...as much as I'd love to just to **** off the Catholic Church.

 

[Skwim]

So byproducts of industry and agriculture, which we immediately have no tolerance for if it's without voter driven checks and medical checks. Sounds more like an argument against allowing unsafe byproducts than allowing for unrelated unnecessary mandatory medical treatment work (which is what body autonomy is really about.)

These are not byproducts of industry and agriculture, but chemicals added to food products and drinking water for various reasons.

Vaccines aren't unnecessary, and are in fact essential for not just the person involved's heath, but the people they expose to should the vaccine fail, they have an allergic reaction, or have contact with someone too young for vaccines. So it's a matter of directly putting other people in harm's way which is not true of all or even most teen pregnancies.
And parents can still choose to homeschool or private school if they're still really opposed.

Private schools are not exempt, and in some states vaccinations are even required in day-care facilities.

 

[Skwim]

Sure, but that doesn't mean there are no limits right?

Don't see any, but if there are what kinds do you envision and why would they necessarily apply?

Requiring immunizations is for public health...the consideration of others. Pregnancy really has no such potential for wide spread public health problems.

Public health problems are far from the only kinds of issues the government is involved in, and it would be foolish to even start enumerating them so I'm leaving you to just consider the fact.

 

[Akivah]

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

If it were 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?​

​

I dislike the mandatory component of your premise. Family planning should be the purview of the individual, not the government. This differs from mandatory vaccinations, since diseased individuals could affect the entire population. Having a child is not a disease.

But having an elective reversible procedure to make any age female "unimpregnantable", would be a good thing.

 

[Skwim]

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.

"Males and girls" rather than "men and women." So what is the minimum number of acceptable teen pregnancies under your best scenario with such a program---we both know it won't be anywhere near 100%?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't think we should institute anything which could interfere with our apparent species-wide goal of creating a larger, dumber, poorer population.

 

[Demonslayer]

Don't see any, but if there are what kinds do you envision and why would they necessarily apply?

My point is I don't like the argument "well the Government already mandates X and Y, so what's the problem with allowing it to mandate Z also?" It's a poor argument because it has no scope, it could be used to justify anything.

"Why not allow the government to harvest one kidney from every American? They are already putting fluoride in the water and making us wear seatbelts after all."

Each thing should be taken as a separate issue, IMO, and a decision made based on the situation at hand.

Public health problems are far from the only kinds of issues the government is involved in, and it would be foolish to even start enumerating them so I'm leaving you to just consider the fact.

Well let's name the worst one then, as an example. Name one thing the government mandates that doesn't have to do with public health. My guess is it won't be as personally intrusive as controlling citizens reproductive freedom.

Something that I'm not completely comfortable with, although it does have to do with public health, are seatbelt/helmet laws. That seems intrusive to me. If I'm an adult and I want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, I've always felt I should be able to. The argument I hear most is, it's that the law is there so police and first responders don't have to come clean up as many grisly scenes.

But I'm on the fence because I had a motorcycle accident and may very well have died if I hadn't been living in a state that mandates helmet laws.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

These are not byproducts of industry and agriculture, but chemicals added to food products and drinking water for various reasons.

Reasons relating to the management of industry and agriculture. Hence a byproduct thereof. Unless you're a chemtrail believer in which case I've got nothing more to say to you.
Needless to say, not a body autonomy issue. Not related to the discussion either.

Private schools are not exempt, and in some states vaccinations are even required in day-care facilities.

Private schools are not exempt in some states and day-care in some states. no states require it of home schooling, even though non-vaccination is an actual public safety concern.
This all seems like a big red herring.

 

[Skwim]

I dislike the mandatory component of your premise. Family planning should be the purview of the individual, not the government.

You're not suggesting that the 1,700 teen births of 15-17 year old girls per week are planned are you? I would bet the number would be less than 25.

This differs from mandatory vaccinations, since diseased individuals could affect the entire population.

It sure does. And it's good to keep in mind that the government is involved in many more issues than those that necessarily affect the entire population.

But now that you bring up the subject of the impact of teen pregnancies on the public,

In 2010, teen pregnancy and childbirth accounted for at least $9.4 billion in costs to U.S. taxpayers for increased health care and foster care, increased incarceration rates among children of teen parents, and lost tax revenue because of lower educational attainment and income among teen mothers.
source​

 

[Skwim]

I don't think we should institute anything which could interfere with our apparent species-wide goal of creating a larger, dumber, poorer population.

Dumber and poorer is always a laudable goal.

 

[Quintessence]

"Males and girls" rather than "men and women." So what is the minimum number of acceptable teen pregnancies under your best scenario with such a program---we both know it won't be anywhere near 100%?

There is no "rather than" to me. I am not concerned about teen female pregnancies, specifically. I am concerned about any and all unwanted pregnancies, which is why I advocate for universal access to and coverage of birth control for anyone of child-bearing age who wants them. Why be ageist and sexist about it when the root issue is unwanted pregnancies?

I only support restraints on reproduction for the purposes of population control... something that is likely to never happen in my country within my lifetime because the importance of it is not understood or accepted.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Dumber and poorer is always a laudable goal.

Teenage motherhood is a critical strategy in achieving it.

 

[Demonslayer]

You're not suggesting that the 1,700 teen births of 15-17 year old girls per week are planned are you? I would bet the number would be less than 25.

While teen pregnancy is an issue we should be concerned about, the statistics show the problem has gotten dramatically better over the last 20 years. See the linked article: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2014/05/05/

Rates of teen pregnancy, birth and abortion have declined dramatically in the United States since their peak in the early 1990s. In 2010, some 614,000 pregnancies occurred among teenage women aged 15–19, for a rate of 57.4 pregnancies per 1,000 women that age. This marks a 51% decline from the 1990 peak, and a 15% decline in just two years, from 67.8 in 2008,

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm still more interested in controlling male erections and perhaps chemically altering them to make them infertile. Would cut down a lot on rapes, too, which actually are a big problem as opposed to teen pregnancies.