Skwim
Veteran Member
Why am I not surprised.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mandatory Birth Control for All Girls
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
They got a blue pill for that now.
I don't know. Why aren't you? I guess you just don't like it when the tables are turned, since we're acting like it's on the female in this thread.
To stop them from happening. Duh.
Skwim
Veteran Member
---*sigh*---As I told you way back in post 13,
"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."
So, just what age do you think is reasonable? And why is it more practical than putting the burden on girls?
Last edited:
How does that same question not apply to your premise?
Skwim
Veteran Member
Gotta answer my questions first.
So, just what age do you think is reasonable? And why is it more practical than putting the burden on girls?
No, I want to know why it doesn't apply to your premise.
I'm not being completely serious. I'm opposed to mandatory birth control in the first place. But I'm just turning around your premise on men because I'm egalitarian like that.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Because if the goal is to prevent teen pregnancy, stopping teen boys from having erections doesn't stop teen girls from getting pregnant by adult men.
Stopping teen girls from being impregnated doesn't stop teen boys from impregnating older women.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Do you expect that those events occur in equal numbers?
No, but it does happen. The only way to get rid of the double standard in this premise is to mandate birth control for both males and females under 18.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I have no problem with sterilizing both. I was just confused because you originally stated that you were more concerned with boys than girls.
I guess I'm somewhat of a misandrist at times.
Let's just sterilize everyone and issue parenting licenses to those who have proven themselves worthy of parenthood (after all children up for adoption have been adopted, that is).
Scott C.
Just one guy
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?
No. I would find such a requirement to be repulsive. If such a method were available, then it must be a choice.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Why "must"?
I'm surprised it's currently 6 for, & only 12 against.
Are those for it non-Americastanians?
I wonder because it seems so counter to our culture & legal system.
Are those for it non-Americastanians?
I wonder because it seems so counter to our culture & legal system.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Let's just sterilize everyone and issue parenting licenses to those who have proven themselves worthy of parenthood (after all children up for adoption have been adopted, that is).
Funnily enough when I was working as a social worker we often talked about that idea.
There is a lot of screening for anyone applying to adopt a child but none for having one yourself.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Perhaps the ability to impregnate or become pregnant, should be seen as a privilege not a right. This shold be earned, and qualified by the ability to look after the infant, with both partners being legally held responsible, with possible default covered by insurance.