No Sperm for You!
Stupid title, I know. But I had to get your attention somehow, right? 
Here's a hypothetical situation I want opinions on:
First World societies are implementing a new health care practice to avoid teenage pregnancies. At the onset of puberty, both males and females will get a contraceptive implanted in their skin that will cause any sperm cells to die off quickly in males, and to have the body reject fertilization in females. The procedure is relatively harmless and costs nothing, but is required to undergo. It's effects are not permanent, and will be taken out at a certain age that the law will decide.
When should the contraceptive be taken out? (As in, when should people have the freedom to reproduce?)
Is controlling the right to reproduce a benefit to modern society?
Do the pros (teenage pregnancy is eradicated, education and social lives will not be jeopardized, no health concerns involving pregnancy for teens, no responsibility of raising a child, no need for abortions from desperate teens, girls having children far too young, ect.) outweigh the cons (having the right to have children taken away until the government decides for you, increase risk of unprotected sex that may lead to more STDs, being forced to undergo the contraceptive implant at a young age, caring less about the repercussions of sex, ect.)?
Comments
21
I don't necessarily think controlling that right is a good thing but I definitely think the pros of it will benefit society more than if they weren't there at all.
I think yes, the pros definitely outweigh the cons. Having the right taken away IMO isn't a very big deal, and unprotected sex is going to happen regardless of the change taking place or not. The smart people will protect themselves, and the more reckless people won't, again regardless of any change that takes place.
This would never work in America - conservatives would have a shit fit. A lot of them don't even want minors to learn about the existence of condoms (which is why Mississpippi has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the country).
I don't think this is a procedure parents or the government should have the authority to force on or deny minors. And the age at which it should be taken out is effectively the age at which people would want to reproduce, which is their prerogatiave.
Controlling the right to reproduce is a benefit to modern society in the abstract, but I do not believe the government has the authority to exercise that kind of control.
If the operation doesn't cover STDs it really isn't a beneficial one. Though even if you said it protected against STDs, people are often too focused on the physical/social risks of sex (STDs and pregnancy) and not enough about the emotional ones. That's not to say that minors should all abstain, just that if two people want to have sex, they should be aware of all of the potential consequences.
Abstinence is
but can we still ejaculate??? i dont want to give up my right to bust on a girls face.... lol jk but i thinking that is a good idea too much kids having kids
I think such a thing, if true, would be a hell of a risk to take.
Sure it said to be harmless, but how could anyone possibly be sure?
Who's to say it couldn't somehow damage a person for life, or if they have kids, who's to say the kids wouldn't be at a higher risk to be born without severe disabilities like down-syndrome, autism, etc?
For example, back 50 or so years ago, a drug was developed for pregnant women, that it would eliminate the pangs of childbirth, the name of the drug I cannot remember, nor do I remember the exact time period it was made.
While the drug did do as it was designed to do, it was found that mothers who took this drug before giving birth, their children had a higher risk of being born with down syndrome.
Hence the drug was discontinued.
No, what needs to be done, is kids need to be taught that sex, while highly pleasurable, is NOT a game.
They need to be taught self-control, responsibility and accountability for their actions, not be taught to look for an easy way out.
They should be taught to use condoms, and proper birth control, as well as being taught to think before they sleep with someone.
Cluke_is_dumb, pointed out the very real truth of the matter, that abstinence is key.
Even at these std testing facilities, the doctors and nurses will tell you that abstinence is the only 100% way of protecting yourself from both std's and unwanted pregnancy.
Truth never changes, no matter how unbelievable it might sound, or how unpopular it might be.
If you don't want to get pregnant, or have an std, then the best way to protect yourself is abstinence.
Now there are many out there, guys especially, that will try to tell you that by "sex makes you a man."
And I can tell you that that is one of the biggest lies out there.
Sex does NOT make you a man!
What makes a boy into a man, is the choices he makes, both how he lives his life, and how he treats others; especially those who are of his family.
"Sex make you man."
NO!
The truth is: "You should be a man FIRST, and then think about sex."
Of course that advice applies to women equally as well.
MY RIGHT TO BUST ON A GIRL'S FACE LMFAOO
I think it should be around 18-21.
Yes, most teenagers abort their babies, I find it horrendous and would prefer it better if it was prevented. Kids shouldn't reproduce, it's stupid.
They definitely outweigh the cons, people who say it's their right to have children would most likely abort it if they had one, they have no right of saying they can give birth to babies that would grow up miserable. There should still be sex ed and stuff, and it should be explained to children what was done to them and why it is more beneficial.
Much like being obligated to go to school terminates your own freedom, yet it is still the right thing to do, terminating your so called "right" to get girls pregnant is way more beneficial to society. It would also guarantee that little girls would never get pregnant if they were raped.
I would gladly take whatever it is they plan to give, and thank my government for looking out for me instead of bicker about my rights being taken away, sometimes your rights have to be taken away so worse things won't happen, just deal with it.
You would still be able to bust a nut, but you'd be "shooting blanks" lol
SHOOTING BLANKS
This can work with some teens, but unless we pump every teenager with hormone suppressors, it ain't gonna happen. This also would only work if every teenager has common sense and good reasoning skills, which many don't. A kid at my school used to come from a live-in school full of kids with behavioral defiance issues, and the teens would hump like rabbits any chance they'd get. Kids need to be taught how to have sex with protection, because abstaining is just too hard for some teens.
I think they should just get abortions, most of them do I'm guessing? If not, then its their kid, they can keep it. This forced infertility seems a bit against "muh freedoms".
Honestly, overpopulation isnt much an issue in the first world, compared to places like Africa that the pope, mummy Teresa and the like ruined with the "condoms are evil" malarky.
I think the best solution is teach kids about condoms/safe sex, because abstinence is quite frankly rubbish. Its in human nature to want to fuck, and if you can with very low chances of pregnancy/STDs, then go for it. Sex isn't some dirty horrible sin like it's made out to be.
I think it should be the persons choice whether they want it or not. And they should be able to take it out whenever they want. But if it was forced I guess id say 18.
It wouldnt do anything good short term but it would be good for the long run. Jesus fuck.
And nope. I think it would be better to educate more and let people keep their freedom instead. People should be able to choose if they want a contraceptive or not.
EDIT - Yes. Your title is what caught my eye. Veryy clever :P
THIS THREAD LMAO
This is pretty morally dodgy really.
Is this actually happening? Do you have articles etc. which show this is actually currently passing through law
I really doubt it will happen. It will both annoy crazy conservatives who oppose vaccines etc (probably thinking their kids will never ever be able to reproduce if the thing is implanted or whatever) and pro-choice people who believe after the age of 18 humans have the right to complete control over their own bodies.
I mean this isn't worse than circumcision because this is at least effectively reversible, and maybe it would be alright if the age to take it was 18...but this seems to be a step in the wrong direction for how much government has control over what people want to do with their bodies.
I think people are forgetting the cheapest and most effective way to avoid getting pregnant: DON'T HAVE SEX.
Why don't they just remove guys fucking dicks while they're at it. Oh we can put it back when you're older! I guess it could prevent unexpected pregnancy and the pros definetelly outweigh the cons, but seriously the goverment can't have this much control over our lives
Is birth control not free in the usa?
Also I don't really get this argument. Like, people shouldn't stop themselves from the emotional and physical pleasure of sex just because they aren't yet ready for a baby.
I'm a bit conflicted about this. I can see the pro's here, but at the same time I tense up when it comes to issues involving people of my age (I'm 15). I feel like in this day and age we're expected to just obey whatever command that is thrown at us and to just conform to the standards of society.
At the end of the day, something like this shouldn't be done without the consent of the person undergoing the procedure. There are teenagers out there that can make responsible decisions, and I believe it should be their choice.
I'm not saying sex is a bad thing, I just think that teens, especially around my age, should be aware of the potential risks that there are if you have sex at a young age and aren't careful enough.
That calls for better sex education, rather than body policing, surely?
I meant instead of this hypothetical situation, girls who don't want kids should just have abortions. How is that going full retard?
This is full retard. You're just telling girls to kill a human because they don't feel like taking care of it
Just a disclaimer that I'm not actually advocating or opposing this idea, I just thought that it would be interesting to discuss.
In this hypothetical situation, the implant would probably have similar effects of women taking birth control (in that once it's no longer in use it would not mess up fertility or give your kids autism and all that). I suppose that in men it would be similar but less extreme than a vasectomy (which men can have reversed), but still able to ejaculate but would be shooting blanks.
This is off-topic, but are you one of those people who think vaccines give children autism?
It could could help stem the tide of teen pregnancy and parental abandonment. Especially in poor communities, it's not uncommon for the dad to bolt when he gets the good news.
Yes and no. The disadvantages are that it encourages irresponsible behavior and the consequences thereof (I.e. Hitting it raw and contracting HIV. It also sets a dangerous precedent of how much control the government has over your body,
18
No. I mean, if both partners of the couple want to have a child at 18, why stop them? It may be bad at the long run for both of them, but they have the legal freedom and rights to do it. They have other factors to stop pregnancy or having children, like abortion and condoms (which, those factors, are legal in a lot of First World countries).
Yes, the pros outweigh the cons.
Anywho, I will never let others implant in me those types of contraceptive implants nor I will implant those implants in my children. There's too much control as it is in our lives, we don't need more (especially with sexual relationships).
Well, my answers will be hypothetical.
25 My answers to the other two questions should explain why I'm aiming high.
Yes and no. The only acceptable reason to enforce contraception is to counter overpopulation. People have the right to choose for themselves, and denying them that right encourages the idea that they aren't able to rationally make the decision whether to have children or control themselves(see the following answer) and follow through however they choose to approach committal to that decision. If it were needed, it should be as a temporary contingency, nothing more, and certainly not as a punishment. Let's assume for sake of argument that there is an established line with multiple sub-clauses governing the enforcement of the contingency and outlining when it can be enforced and when it should be lifted.
No. The consequences and repercussions of unsafe sex are life-changing, and taking away the danger and risk at an early age can skew perceptions of the likelihood of and vulnerability to said risks, which would be worse than what we have right now, a relative few number of people making an uninformed decision. In fact, by the time people are allowed to have children, the number of accidental pregnancies and births could be double what they were before the institution of the contingency, so the law, when in effect, may not even work in the long run.
If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't. It however should be available to those who don't want a pregnancy/child. Plenty of potential humans are never born, people have the right to not house a growing life form in their body if they don't want to.
No, they really don't, they can just birth it and give it away, at least they won't be murderers. Abortion is murder and whatever you say to yourself you're still killing a living human. I don't have to be a woman to realize that. Just because you don't want to be pregnant it doesn't mean you have the right to kill a human either.
Oh, sorry.
I'm not even going to bother, you're too far gone.
The title of this thread... yuck
Hey, I never appointed myself abortion debater. As long as your not harming anyone, or infringing on women having abortions, feel free to hold your views.
18+
Controlling the people? Nothing bad ever happens from that.(/sarcasm) It's a very fine line to draw when your asking the parents (right? the parents are the one making this decision, hypothetically?) your kid can fuck at any age and not worry about getting pregnant. It can cause both relief and worry. Odds are sex during childhood would probably increase and that would be huge cause for concern for how socially acceptable things would be in a person's environment. Change, it is inevitable and humans can adapt, but it's just so damn scary.
Although this may seem dark, childhood innocence would be a thing of the past (if the internet hasn't done that already). We may end up seeing more Adult with teen romantic relations. It would be a very strange world if this happened, people would act and think way differently than what we see now and maybe in a bad/creepy way.
Every time I see this thread I want to post this. I can't resist any longer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
Meh, just threaten to castrate the teens boys if they don't use protection, that'll clear things up. Although imagine that being a thing and having to be the parents in that situation "No you can't have your penis until you're18, we've discussed this already! You're not mature or man enough to be walking around with that thing yet!"
Being serious, you'd probably have a whole lot of human rights debates come into it, like is it good? Is it not? blah blah blah. If anything parents should be stricter with themselves on their kids and better educate them about this stuff so they don't fall victim to things like peer pressure, pushy girlfriends/boyfriends trying it on and to not act like hormonal drunk idiots. If teens were careful and had decent relationships with their parents/family/legalguardian to be able to talk about this stuff, then unplanned pregnancies in teens wouldn't be as common I don't think.
What you're suggesting though is an interesting idea, but what if it went a step further to where adults used it too? An implant that didn't get them pregnant? Give me one that doesn't give me periods and I'm all green light for that! =D