Would you support legislation to make it illegal to get pregnant with out a license?

I would be against the legislation.



I would support a biological device that prevents a woman from conceiving (100%, unlike the pill, no side effects....a default non-prgnancy setting) & easily reversed upon a woman's judgement.



If dudes could get pregnant, such a device would already have been invented. Failing that scientific breakthrough, there'd be abortion clinics galore.

 

All of what you are claiming would control population without fining people or putting them in jail for conceiving.

 

Good....you shouldn't argue against it. While unfortunate, it is a historical fact.

 

Pretty sure the latest IUD's meet this criteria. If the Republicans were actually interested in reducing the number of abortions, it wouldn't cost much to make this procedure available, free of charge, at every Planned Parenthood. Of course, Republican opposition to abortion is more about punishing women they think are slutty than actually reducing the number of abortions, so it'll never happen.

 

There are some Republicans who honestly believe that life begins at conception, therefore abortion is wrong. You or I or anybody else may disagree with that belief. However, that earnest belief is out there for some and it is unfair to ascribe a more sinister motive to all who oppose you politically when it may not be there.

 

Don't think you can put the onus of pregnancy on women. I think you can encourage people into parenting classes perhaps. Instead of giving away child tax credits, only give them to someone that completes a parenting course every year or have parenting classes a requirement like jury duty. Something of that nature, the tax break or some kind of stipend might work better.

 

Only staight up eugenics and people control and liberty restrictions can get that accomplished.

I say no to that. And I dont even have any kids and I'm well into fatherhood age.

Its all about the poorer, lower income people having all the excess children planned or unplanned that they cant support. Because of lack of education, resources and cultural beliefs on birthing that are misguided.

Look, USA needs to take some advise from Europe. The woman and family friendly laws in some developed countries like sweden, women and families will actually work within the system and intentionally not have more kids outside what the system cant support.

Keep women busy in careers and contributing instead of just completely relegated to sitting at home with no prospects waiting for patriarchal man to come home and innoculate his seed to turn her into fulltime preggo incubator, then women just wont have time and ambition to be babying too much. I read somewhere once that Sex in the City trend was humorously called the best natural form of birth control.

Theres still things that can be done without full on nanny state attempts. Can freely subsidize through the state a womans first 2 births. But after the third SHE has to pay a "BIRTH TAX". Make it financially punitive for her to have excess kids. But since shed get a break on the first 2, shed maybe be willing to stay within the system and learn responsibly within it.

And once male birth control becomes a reality, women's intentionally unitentional birth games are done.

 

No.

To me it's a basic question of freedom. If you aren't free to have a kid when you want, then you simply are not free.

I do find it fascinating that many of our liberal posters are voting yes, however. These are the same people who consistently argue for "reproductive freedom" (a.k.a., killing babies), and now they are totally OK with completely removing that freedom from mommy. Or at least, removing actual reproductive freedom, but keeping the killing babies part... But I suppose preventing babies from happening is less cruel than killing them, no?

Hypocrisy much, do we?

 

that's just crazy .

 

the liberals are complete hypocrites on the topic.

 

Yessir.

 

We're a bit far away from detachable uterus and detachable penis. And Birth-On-Demand.
But reversible vasectomies already exist in guys, just no one will do it for a variety of reasons. And of course there's already completely NON-invasive condoms. And of course .... abortions.

Safe male birth control and reversible sperm sterilization has been "just 10 years away" for 40 years already, so it'll happen when it happens. But there seems to be some progress on the horizon for birth biological devices for both men and women. But it just seems so...cyborg-y having to rely on all that. Devices to save us from ourselves.

The way I see it, can't put FULL ONUS on women. But DEFINITELY can put PRESSURE on women. Have to bring back the PUBLIC SHAME element of making DUMB CHOICES. Though its NOT about the old "female objectification" issues. Its about men AND women needing to be disciplined for HUMANITY's sake.

Women have the "My Body - My Choice" approach. But it gets turned into "My Body Choices - Stay AWAY NONE of YOUR BUSINESS", which is missing the mark. We make women the GATEKEEPERS to their bodies, its up to them to control access in and out. But its women giving in to temptations that men have long been criticized about. And its women cosigning off on other women's BS.

It WON'T but SHOULD be to not give things like "16 and Pregnant" ANY sympathy and endorsement. Don't even put that crap on the air. And guys have to stop giving the gold digging groupy celebrated single babymama the "But Dat ASS, Tho" EXEMPTION. And its how you get the Teen Mom's doing p*rn without ANY qualms about it.

Just saying, before its resorting to biological devices and intrusive legislation - Why not just TELL people that they're ****ING UP, to their FACE? Instead of doing radical things just to spare FEELINGS. And it'd save lots of RESOURCES with being MEAN ASSHOLES lol .

But yeah I agree on the taxation and stipends.

 

Best form would probably be to cull the herd, but that would be a little inhumane.

Eventually disease will find a way. We aren't going to do it on our own.

 

It was actually a pretty interesting discussion before this giant turd of a post.

Meanwhile, nearly 70% of the votes are against this.

 

I wonder why people seem so repulsed by this idea. If the pace of technological development (i.e. food production, space exploration, etc) can't keep up with population growth, a real possibility, wouldn't such an approach be preferable to, say, a massive world war over resources or starvation on a global scale?

I'm glad I'll probably be long dead before mankind has to face these issues and I certainly won't contribute to the problem by having more than two kids...

 

Yes, no matter how you look at it.

 

I would in a second. I'm college educated, working for a great company, and still feel I'm years away from being able to support a child. Yet I see some of my friends having children that are still children themselves.

Maybe we can find a reversible way to sterilize children at birth in the future.

 

So... How big a leap is it from this hypothetical law to forced sterilization?

Really?

 

Not a far a leap as you (or I for that matter) would like to believe.

Would you like some sources?

 

I'd be against licsencing to become pregnant, because I don't believe having kids is a right to be earned. However, I do support it being a right to be lost.

Specifics would have to be worked out, but I'd support sterilization if you've had a child you don't support. Ideally, it would be a method of sterilization that could be easily reversed, should an individual prove that they are now able to undertake the responsibility.