Is Mandatory Contraception the Solution to Teen Pregnancy?

[zomgwtf]

So in fact it doesn't have anything to do with the fact it's a right or a privilege, but with your vision that young adults should not reproduce. When in fact it is not your decision to take. It's theirs. Educated or not.

:rofl: How'd you draw that conclusion again, lay it out for me. Please.

 

[DanP]

:rofl: How'd you draw that conclusion again, lay it out for me. Please.

By outlining your hopes that "proper education" will prevent young ppl from making the decision to reproduce.

 

[zomgwtf]

By outlining your hopes that "proper education" will prevent young ppl from making the decision to reproduce.

I don't see how your conclusion follows or what point you are trying to prove. You shifted goalpost on me and I'm not certain where you want me to jump next.

However it appears your attempting to put words and statements I never made nor intended to make into my mouth so that's where this discussion between me and you ends. Until of course you draw out exactly how you concluded that:

When in fact it is not your decision to take. It's theirs. Educated or not.

 

[DanP]

I don't see how your conclusion follows or what point you are trying to prove. You shifted goalpost on me and I'm not certain where you want me to jump next.

Maybe clarify your statements. The conclusion follows from this:

No you do not need to 'earn the right' to reproduce but I'm hopefull that proper education will prevent younger people from making this decision.

You state clearly that you hope that what you think is "proper education" will prevent young adults from taking the decision to reproduce.

 

[zomgwtf]

You state clearly that you hope that what you think is "proper education" will prevent young adults from taking the decision to reproduce.

From which you conclude that I am making decisions for them? You make detective!

 

[DanP]

From which you conclude that I am making decisions for them? You make detective!

Lets be serious, you can't make any decision for them. We both know that. You can only try and make public the policy in which you seem to believe, that young adults should not reproduce. And yeah, screwing around is not a privilege. It comes naturally.

 

[zomgwtf]

Lets be serious, you can't make any decision for them. We both know that. You can only try and make public the policy in which you seem to believe, that young adults should not reproduce. And yeah, screwing around is not a privilege. It comes naturally.

So instead of answering how you concluded that I am making decisions for people you go ahead and say 'you can't make any decision for them'? Well ok then. I'll take that for you concede to me you were originally wrong about what you said about my statement. Good day sir.

 

[DanP]

So instead of answering how you concluded that I am making decisions for people you go ahead and say 'you can't make any decision for them'?

Your whole point is wrong. You are by default in a position where it is impossible for you to make any decisions for said teenagers. I merely reminded you that.

 

[zomgwtf]

Your whole point is wrong. You are by default in a position where it is impossible for you to make any decisions for said teenagers. I merely reminded you that.

So I'll merely remind you that this is the third time I'm asking for you to draw out how you have concluded I am attempting to make or proposing that decisions be made by myself or any other individual other than those actualy making the decision.

I've asked you plenty of times and instead of answering you are asserting that's my position, even though I have stated multiple times it's not my position and I want a reason why you continue to say it. Again, do not put words/statements into my mouth.

In fact all that has gone on the last few posts is me asking you to explain how you concluded that followed by you posting that it is in fact my position and then you try to refute that I shouldn't be in that position as though you're actually arguing against what I had posted. In reality what you've continued to post has little to nothing to what I'm asking you and is just your feeble attempt at asserting I said something that I never did.

 

[DanP]

In fact all that has gone on the last few posts is me asking you to explain how you concluded that followed by you posting that it is in fact my position and then you try to refute that I shouldn't be in that position as though you're actually arguing against what I had posted. In reality what you've continued to post has little to nothing to what I'm asking you and is just your feeble attempt at asserting I said something that I never did.

Because you ask the wrong question time and again.

 

[russ_watters]

Nobody said anything about a government mandate. The question was directed at parents.

He probably saw the title and assumed something different than what I described in the OP. At some point, I actually wanted to expand the discussion to that, but probably should have worded the title differently to avoid confustion. He just jumped ahead of me, that's all...

...don't have time for this right now, though. But in short, I don't see the issue too much differently than mandatory innoculation.

 

[DanP]

I don't see the issue too much differently than mandatory innoculation.

On women only ? Why not force all males to go through reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance or similar procedures ?

 

[Char. Limit]

On women only ? Why not force all males to go through reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance or similar procedures ?

Because I don't think we know how to do a reversible, yet complete, inhibition of sperm.

 

[DanP]

Because I don't think we know how to do a reversible, yet complete, inhibition of sperm.

Give it a few years. But the point is, you can't mandatory inject women with anti-fertility drugs, and let man roam free. Besides the fact that creating infertility in a human being, even temporary, against it's will is a violation of the most elementary rights, targeting only women is sexual discrimination.

 

[Char. Limit]

...if I had a nickel for every time I heard the words "sexual discrimination", used in an argument, I'd go buy Tahiti.

However, that's not a valid counterargument. So I'll just say that it's not really sexual discrimination to follow the path of least resistance that guarantees the desired effect.

 

[DanP]

...if I had a nickel for every time I heard the words "sexual discrimination", used in an argument, I'd go buy Tahiti.

However, you did not bought Tahiti. The lawyers winning sexual discrimination cases did

 

[JoeDawg]

Except for the fact that there is still precedent for requiring that...

Pregnancy is not a disease, so your vaccination 'precedent' doesn't apply.

 

[Char. Limit]

Pregnancy is not a disease, so your vaccination 'precedent' doesn't apply.

try reading the rest of the post, where I say that even though pregnancy isn't a disease, vaccination is still a precedent; especially considering that pregnancy can cause diseases, especially if the pregnant one is too young.

 

[russ_watters]

On women only ? Why not force all males to go through reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance or similar procedures ?

I did say on the first page that if a good male equivalent existed, I would support it.

 

[magpies]

One does it's called a tool shed and an axe.

 

[Char. Limit]

One does it's called a tool shed and an axe.

It has to be nonpermanent... and not something that every male would rather commit suicide than have happen to them.

 

[zomgwtf]

One does it's called a tool shed and an axe.

It's got to be reversible!

 

[hamster143]

Teen pregnancy is one of the larger social problems facing the US and to a lesser extent most of the rest of the western world. It creates poverty by preventing the parents from getting an education and good jobs and making it difficult to raise the kids...and that then makes it cyclical. I'm not a parent yet, but I can imagine the #1 fear of a parent of a teenager has to be that they will get someone/become pregnant.

It's not going to work. And here's why.

In the U.S., teen pregnancy is primarily a problem in religious societies, particularly among Catholics. Normal people like you and I allow and approve of sex-ed, condoms, abortion in the first trimester if it comes to that. Religious zealots do not approve of any of it. Their standard answer is "abstinence till marriage". And, of course, it fails. It fails so bad that teen pregnancy rates among latina girls (for the most part, raised in zealous Catholic households) can be literally TEN TIMES higher than those of godless white residents of Silicon Valley.

You can have the best available kinds of contraception in the world, and they won't help if the only thing that the teen's parents would accept is abstinence till marriage.

 

[magpies]

Just tell the morons that they will grow back in a few years they will probably buy it.

 

[Char. Limit]

Just tell the morons that they will grow back in a few years they will probably buy it.

Thanks, just thanks. I happen to be one of those "morons", and I definitely didn't buy even the implication.

 

[zomgwtf]

...don't have time for this right now, though. But in short, I don't see the issue too much differently than mandatory innoculation.

Is there mandatory inoculation in America? I know in Canada there is absolutely no law/policy regarding mandatory inoculation. Some schools/workplaces/groups of people will require you to have specific vaccinations prior to you joining... but that's not 'mandatory'. So no this would not be the same, as I understand it to be, as mandatory inoculation.

Now what if jobs or high schools started requiring that female students undergo this contraception. Who will pay for it? The school? The government? The parents? I still don't think it's the same, even if it were done for free by the government. Vaccinations don't toss out the window a persons natural rights. Mandatory contraception does.

 

[magpies]

For real why do you all even care about birth rates? The problem is not birth rates but stupidity. If the stupidity isn't so high we will be able to manage many children. Of course I do understand that a society with a lot of smarts probably would be having mostly clones born in a factory rather then barbaric way...

I guess my point is face it your all barbarians living in the stone age your only hope is for a group of friendly aliens to arive and tame this wilderness.

 

[zomgwtf]

It's not going to work. And here's why.

In the U.S., teen pregnancy is primarily a problem in religious societies, particularly among Catholics. Normal people like you and I allow and approve of sex-ed, condoms, abortion in the first trimester if it comes to that. Religious zealots do not approve of any of it. Their standard answer is "abstinence till marriage". And, of course, it fails. It fails so bad that teen pregnancy rates among latina girls (for the most part, raised in zealous Catholic households) can be literally TEN TIMES higher than those of godless white residents of Silicon Valley.

You can have the best available kinds of contraception in the world, and they won't help if the only thing that the teen's parents would accept is abstinence till marriage.

Or maybe it has to do with that the majority of latinas live in poverty? Which was exactly what russ's post points at: A cycle of pregnancies and increasing poverty. I highly doubt the people in Silicon Valley are poor by any standard. Doesn't Apple and Intel have their headquarters there? I know there are probably 10 Fortune 100 companies with headquarters there.

 

[Char. Limit]

Or maybe it has to do with that the majority of latinas live in poverty? Which was exactly what russ's post points at: A cycle of pregnancies and increasing poverty. I highly doubt the people in Silicon Valley are poor by any standard. Doesn't Apple and Intel have their headquarters there? I know there are probably 10 Fortune 100 companies with headquarters there.

In short, we have one effect, and two possible causes. You are arguing for one, zomg, and hamster is arguing for another. I just want to ask... why not both?

 

[zomgwtf]

For real why do you all even care about birth rates? The problem is not birth rates but stupidity. If the stupidity isn't so high we will be able to manage many children. Of course I do understand that a society with a lot of smarts probably would be having mostly clones born in a factory rather then barbaric way...

Yeah it is stupidity but it has nothing to do with 'managing' children. It has to do with parenting ability and the impact a child will have on ANOTHER CHILD WHO IS THE PARENT. I know my mother dropped out of high-school in grade 10 in order to raise my ***. BOOM Highschool education out the window, further education opportunities ALL GONE, economic security at the time, NONE. etc. etc. the list just goes on and on.

I guess my point is face it your all barbarians living in the stone age your only hope is for a group of friendly aliens to arive and tame this wilderness.

I guess my point is, if your not posting to make a valid post in relation to the OP, then don't post at all.

 

[Kerrie]

Give it a few years. But the point is, you can't mandatory inject women with anti-fertility drugs, and let man roam free. Besides the fact that creating infertility in a human being, even temporary, against it's will is a violation of the most elementary rights, targeting only women is sexual discrimination.

I agree with most of this statement. For one, has there been any research as to any long term effects of injected contraception for young women? They may be able to produce a child, but that doesn't mean they themselves are done developing. Also, with such a mandate, this gives license to young men (and even older men) to have sex more frequently and again, spread disease more rapidly. I don't agree this is sexual discrimination because if Norplant was available for men, there is still the debate of rampant sex that in the end can lead to diseases.

 

[zomgwtf]

In short, we have one effect, and two possible causes. You are arguing for one, zomg, and hamster is arguing for another. I just want to ask... why not both?

It very well might be both. I'm sure there is a poll done somewhere on the internet.

I would say though, with 90% certainty that at least 80% of the problem has to do with the people being in poverty in the first place which greatly effects their quality of education.

 

[Char. Limit]

I agree with most of this statement. For one, has there been any research as to any long term effects of injected contraception for young women? They may be able to produce a child, but that doesn't mean they themselves are done developing. Also, with such a mandate, this gives license to young men (and even older men) to have sex more frequently and again, spread disease more rapidly. I don't agree this is sexual discrimination because if Norplant was available for men, there is still the debate of rampant sex that in the end can lead to diseases.

I can't tell about the last sentence... are you saying that you don't agree, that this is sexual discrimination, or you don't agree that this is sexual discrimination? Are you saying it is or it isn't?

 

[magpies]

I think the main reason for not going through with forced condoms is that once we walk down that road it's going to be twice as hard to get out of it. Why not just make it so that people have to raise there own children. I bet half the people who have babies would stop if there wasn't a good reason $$$ wise to do it. So basically all we men would have to do is stop supporting women who get pregnent via what ever means we do. Like tax breaks, food stamps, education, appartments ect... Just take away any help from someone who has a child. If they can't raise the child without help they shouldn't be having it right?

 

[russ_watters]

In the U.S., teen pregnancy is primarily a problem in religious societies, particularly among Catholics. Normal people like you and I allow and approve of sex-ed, condoms, abortion in the first trimester if it comes to that. Religious zealots do not approve of any of it. Their standard answer is "abstinence till marriage". And, of course, it fails. It fails so bad that teen pregnancy rates among latina girls (for the most part, raised in zealous Catholic households) can be literally TEN TIMES higher than those of godless white residents of Silicon Valley.

You can have the best available kinds of contraception in the world, and they won't help if the only thing that the teen's parents would accept is abstinence till marriage.

I don't know that that necessarily follows. Your one stat there has an obvious income-based bias to it, so I'd need to see some statistics normalized for income/social status/race in order to accept that religion alone plays a big role. Ie, do wealthy catholic whites have 10x the teen pregnancy rate of wealthy protestant whites or wealthy athiest whites?