Give me one good reason why we shouldn't have mandatory birth control as soon as you hit puberty that you can only get...

Give me one good reason why we shouldn't have mandatory birth control as soon as you hit puberty that you can only get off when you get married. It prevents abortion, could allow the government to make divorce more difficult to file for (especially in situations with children), and allows for more stable homes.
>but they'll just have sex all the time on birth control
they're doing it now anyway

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrauterine_device
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Bump, I wanna see Sup Forums's answer to this

individual liberty

it goes against nature and probably permanently messed them up putting them on it at an early age

Why not just criminalize premarital sex because it's non-optimal behavior? If you're worried about lowering divorce, previous partner count is highly predictive of both likelihood to cheat and divorce.

Because its not some magical fucking pill dude, it has side effects like anything else.
Sure let's let the government force drugs onto people, great idea buddy.

estrogen in the water supply

Sounds like a solid plan. I would see some room for criticism if the form of birth control was condoms but I think the only real problem with this idea is that you cant police people in their bedrooms.

It's called marijuana. And, no, you cannot have it until you are 21. Deal with having condom bits on your genital areas until then, ya filthy kid.

Because you are retarded american,and you aare everywhere fighting for freedom.
Stupid christians

No government should be able to mandate chemicals that I must take. Mandate responsibility instead.

Because birth control sucks and for women, it can lead to nasty hormonal side effects. I also don't want that additional estrogen in my drinking water.

So you're unwilling to have mandatory birth control because you want to have kids out of wedlock, you'd make a great parent
>it goes against nature
appeal to nature fallacy
>probably permanently messed them up putting them on it at an early age
There are non-hormonal variants of birth control
There are non-hormonal variants of birth control
>you can't police people in their bedrooms
I agree with this, though you could do non-hormonal IUDs or something.

>they're doing it now anyway
Then they should suffer the consequences. Actions have consequences if you have sex and the woman gets pregnant thats your problem care for your kid. If you don't want a kid or cant afford one don't have sex. Its not the governments job to use tax money to pay for peoples poor choices. People who make poor choices should be forced to suffer through those consequences and pointed out to others as an example of what not to be or do.

I support abortion in germany, france, and uk. Everywhere else it should be forbidden

>we should poison girls
No, instead girls should be married immediately after menarche at the latest, earlier is better.

Marriage is a scam if you are male. If anything birth control should be outlawed, so that women would have to think hard about getting a good and kind father when they choose a sexual partner.

>There are non-hormonal variants of birth control
good luck getting people to buy it if it even gets on the shelves

>Marriage is a scam if you are male
Hence why divorce should be more difficult to get, change the way marriage is set up now.
>If anything birth control should be outlawed, so that women would have to think hard about getting a good and kind father when they choose a sexual partner.
Good luck getting that law passed, everyone would cry that it is literally Handmaiden's Tale
>good luck getting people to buy it if it even gets on the shelves
That's why I said mandatory faggot
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrauterine_device

Honest answer to your question is that long-term use of birth control can have severe medical consequences and would eventually become very unhealthy for a population

Why not just make all men have vasectomies, and then when you get a career and pass certain benchmarks you are allowed to have it reversed.

Because population is declining. Also that's a bit tyrannical

There are non-hormonal variants of birth control
Sure, if they're reversible I have no issue with that

What kind of dystopian world do you want where the government tells you when you can have kids, did you grow up in China?

Because that sounds like the government inflicting on someones right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness?
non hormonal IUDs have the risk of having an ectopic pregnancy and other risks that come with implants

Yes, lets pump our women full of mind altering drugs, good idea goyim.

You can't forcibly compel people to sterilize themselves

Because it fucks up your woman's hormones real bad and makes them susceptible to all sorts of diseases. People should just have less sex and put their energy into useful things.

Ban porn!
Ban thumpa-thumpa music!
Abandon American slut culture!

We'll see about that. Give it 50 years.

Oh shut up you stupid faggot who ends statements with question marks because he thinks what he's saying is obvious but he only really confuses obviousness of something being wrong with anything going against his indorination. Kill yourself, idiot.
>inflicting on someones right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness?
This doesn't even make any sense.

Because marriage is a kike scam

indoctrination*

Not a bad idea. I do believe abortion doctors and whorebags who are unrepentant after getting them should have their heads placed in vices and crushed, though.

because being on birth control for years once you hit puberty has adverse health effects and women just wouldnt take it and it'd be a massive waste of money, just literally throwing condoms at people would work better

>jews want you to reproduce

bad psyop

He can do it in the buttsex

Why? Do you want there to be more poor people? You think there aren't enough retards and criminals? Anti-abortionists are stupid, all feels and no reason.

>Because population is declining
I think most of Sup Forums would support a program like this being installed in African countries where population is booming.
The main point is to prevent abortions and to make marriage a more stable proposition. Also, a declining population isn't a bad thing that necessitates more immigrants or something, that's just what "infinite growth" capitalism wants you to think.
>Also that's a bit tyrannical
Many things that you accept in your day to day life would be seen by some as tyrannical and by those within the culture as normal
>Because that sounds like the government inflicting on someones right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness?
So a line from the Declaration of Independence decides what policies we can or can't have?
>non hormonal IUDs have the risk of having an ectopic pregnancy and other risks that come with implants
No method is 100% perfect, the point is to be mostly perfect. Yes, there are risks, but is it worth it to end abortion?
No, just turn off government assistance for those who refuse.
there's non-hormonal birth control, such as IUDs

Its funny, cause as soon as I read that part of my post after I posted it, I realized the question mark was unwarrented. My point still stands, but the wording is shit, you got me there.

birth control is wrong
We should ban birth control and enforce life-long binding marriage on any couple that conceives. And breaking the marriage would involve a stoning.

>just sitting here eating my pizza hut and mountain dew, so glad i didn't fall for being a consumerist cuck for the joos
epic

>birth control is wrong
Why?
>We should ban birth control and enforce life-long binding marriage on any couple that conceives. And breaking the marriage would involve a stoning.
There's some Islamic countries who might accept people like you.

correct answer

Because there is nothing bad in abortion.

Some people certainly think so, which is why you get tons of single mothers.

How can you enforce that? Go into their homes and make sure L'Shaunda takes her pills? Finger her vag and check for the IUD? Too expensive to take blood tests for hormone levels on everyone, too expensive to make them get a shot.

I'd like there to be less people who perform and/or get abortions, so they can die instead, since they're the ones guilty of being evil. Not innocent life.

>How can you enforce that? Go into their homes and make sure L'Shaunda takes her pills? Finger her vag and check for the IUD?
Sure, gynecological exams are something women go to anyway, provide a yearly checkup or something, there's plenty of ways to do it.

Abortions are ok. The decision to abort, however, should be based on the common good, not the particular womyn's wellbeing.

Also how are single moms are the result of abortions? Sounds like the opposite.

Aye, the bloody irish is right.

>jews want you to reproduce
You don't need marriage to reproduce retard

>Abortions are ok.
I don't think anyone likes having to do them, and if you think there's 0 moral issues with it you're fucked up.
>how are single moms are the result of abortions?
You get single mothers because women think abortion is bad and refuse to abort

There are many things some people dont want to do, which are, however, necessary for successful society.
> moral issues
No such thing.

Why should someone have the freedom to have a child out of wedlock? Why should someone have the freedom to subject a child to an objectively worse situation? This doesn't just affect the parents, it affects the child.
If you don't have any morality then post your Stirner pics and get out.

>abortion is wrong
>but jerking off is fine
if you feel bad for a fetus you should feel bad for sperm for the same reason

I'm saying that goverment mandated birth control sounds like a violation of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But you are right, with due process, we can make policies mandating birthcontrol.
>Yes, there are risks, but is it worth it to end abortion?
I think deciding to take those risks should be up to the individual not mandated by the government. I do think the government should push birthcontrol heavily to curb abortions. If your goal is ending abortion through birthcontrol, what about people who abortions when the find out thier kids are gonna be retards, in that case mandatory birthcontrol would do nothing to eliminate abortions.

more estrogen in the water
huge side effects in many women

>>birth control is wrong
>Why?
Because even thought the papacy is the Anti-Christ, Pope Paul VI was correct that birth control splits the procreative act in a destructive manner.

>there are some islamic countries...blah blah blah
They're doing it right and it serves them well. They'll roast in Hell, but at least they have the good sense to order their lives correctly.

Fucking pleb.

Because it fucks up your hormones for life.

>not recognizing that the beverage is Hitler Did Nothing Wrong

Health risks are involved with every form of contraception sans barrier methods (And even those can be dangerous if used improperly)
Try practicing a little self control

Thats why we better just kill undesirable babies as they are born, like in ancient greece.

>There are non-hormonal variants of birth control
Each carrying their own risks, especially for males.

>lets pump children full of drugs instead of teaching them morality

No. Murder is wrong.

Freedom

And you should feel bad every time a woman has her period. The difference is one WILL become a person if left alone, the other won't.
>I think deciding to take those risks should be up to the individual not mandated by the government.
In an ideal scenario with rational people, yes, that would work. My primary concern is for the children who are born into single parent households, which are objectively worse than two parent households.
>If your goal is ending abortion through birthcontrol
Nah, that's just a side benefit.
>what about people who abortions when the find out thier kids are gonna be retards
I think that would be an important debate to have, but it's not the argument we're having
I am not a Catholic, so a justification that "the pope said" does nothing for me
Would you take the health risks if it meant that every child would grow up in a stable home? I would.
Nothing is without risk.
No need to pump them full of drugs

Lower the marriage age to 14.
Divorce is only permitted if one partner commits a crime.

NIGGA ITUs can be really dangerous and they definitely have side affects. Have you even done your research? I would never recommend an ITU for anyone. It can literally be dislodged by normal exercise and it causes extreme pain when it does.

The freedom to give a child an objectively worse childhood by growing up in a single parent household rather than a two parent household.

haha i meant IUD not ITU

Why? When you are dead you dont care anymore.

>NIGGA ITUs can be really dangerous and they definitely have side affects.
Then focus research on making something better. Nothing is without risk. I only say to use non-hormonal variants because everyone here flips out about hormones in the water supply.

it encourages sexual promiscuity, which increases rates of STD's, unwanted pregnancy (and therefore abortion), and destroys the foundation upon which the married family rests - the exclusive access, between two consenting adults, to sex and resources, each thing provided by and to the other.

what's the point in being civil with anyone or planning for the future if I think I can just do whatever I want with whoever I want, with no consequences, forever until the end of my life? this is the way that children think and it should be stamped out whenever possible. otherwise everything will fall to ruin.

You Americans really are subhuman desu, its amazing how you creatures possess the ability to communicate with humans

>left alone
>has to be fed and taken care of by the mother or it dies
pick one you tremendous fucking retard

inserting anything into your body to just stop it from working is fucking insane to me and there really isn't a way to "improve" it. Dumb asses don't understand that menstruation is a hormonal thing; so you must use some kind of hormone to combat it. i wouldnt spread falsities just to please some paranoid people here.

This

I should have just left out that part about hormones, you're right. The real reason birth control is bad is because it creates unhealthy relations toward one's own sexuality. Our sexual culture is all fucked up and men and women both suffer from it.

>it encourages sexual promiscuity
birth control is freely available now, so why would making it mandatory increase promiscuity further
>unwanted pregnancy
which is one thing I'm wanting to prevent
>destroys the foundation upon which the married family rests - the exclusive access, between two consenting adults, to sex and resources, each thing provided by and to the other.
I want to stabilize marriages by making marriage a more firm commitment
>what's the point in being civil with anyone or planning for the future if I think I can just do whatever I want with whoever I want, with no consequences, forever until the end of my life?
The mandatory birth control ends after marriage
Definitely a woman with this level of nitpicking
>The real reason birth control is bad is because it creates unhealthy relations toward one's own sexuality. Our sexual culture is all fucked up and men and women both suffer from it.
I agree with that, but now that the birth control can of worms has been opened I don't think it's going away, so I propose mitigating it by making divorce harder to file for, making marriage a more secure proposition for both partners.

>Ayyy

>so you must use some kind of hormone to combat it.
There are also physical ways of blocking the egg from being fertilized
>i wouldnt spread falsities just to please some paranoid people here.
I'm not

>My primary concern is for the children who are born into single parent households, which are objectively worse than two parent households.
If preventing abortion is not the main goal why not try and make a law forcing people to marry when they have children, or increasing education about the realities of being raised by a single parent, rather than force objects or hormones in to people against thier will. I think you are making the single parent arugment too simple, two parents doesn't equal a happy household, though statistics show single parent is worse than two parents. What if a kid was being abused by one of the parents, in that case wouldn't it be better to be raised by a single non abusive parent. It seems like you want the state to issue licenses for having children

But I support abortion and divorce is a beautiful thing.

Only fat ugly guys with money love social cages like these.

Stay mad, cuckholds.

/thread

>nitpicking
I really hope you're just baiting and not actually this stupid. Being 100% dependent on another person for your survival means you can not be left alone.

Try actually giving an answer instead of dodging, you stupid nigger.

>I agree with that, but now that the birth control can of worms has been opened I don't think it's going away, so I propose mitigating it by making divorce harder to file for, making marriage a more secure proposition for both partners.
No. We have to intervene on a cultural level. The possibility of divorce is well and good, it's the values that American (and americanised) pop culture mediates that are the problem. Porn is part of it, typical hiphop and dance music, Hollywood films, and very importantly advertisements all of which propagate a sick, materialistic vision of happiness and especially of love and sex - they have to be dealt with - we must reconnect to the culture of past generations that prioritised more complex and less materialistic values. That is the only real solution. We must create new ideals, a new culture of greatness. America will probably have the most problems with that because your cultural industries, at least those that rech young people, are entirely in the hands of blacks and especially materialistically minded blacks at that.

You also have the problem of not having a long cultural tradition to fall back on, you have to import a past European culture of greatness. But I'm sure you can do it.

It promotes degeneracy.

Hormone based ??
NOPE ,NOPE ,NOPE .
Have you EVER actually witnessed the affects of such powerful hormones on teen girls . It damages them physical ,mentally emotionally.
I've seen it first hand hundreds of times.
I've witnessed , kind,quiet,gentile, well mannered teen girls turn into COMPLETE raving,raging monsters within days of taking "The Pill" .
I believe it has ruined generations of women and it's DEFINITELY part of the Feminist problem today.
I personally think "THE PILL" should be banned, the hormonal imbalance it creates leaves life long lasting mental damage.
I'm 100% serious.

>why not try and make a law forcing people to marry when they have children
The point is to make having children a commitment that both people think long and hard about, once you have children with someone you don't love you're fucked
>increasing education about the realities of being raised by a single parent
because education won't work for everyone
>two parents doesn't equal a happy household
Not necessarily, I agree, but on almost every metric the children end up significantly better off with two parents than one
>What if a kid was being abused by one of the parents, in that case wouldn't it be better to be raised by a single non abusive parent.
That's always a possibility, in cases where someone HAS to be raised by a single parent I propose more community involvement in raising the child
>It seems like you want the state to issue licenses for having children
If someone cannot provide for their children they should not have them, do you find this offensive?
I agree that this would work, but I think it would be extremely unpopular.
>we must reconnect to the culture of past generations
good luck forming a traditionalist movement in the age of post-modernism
>we must create new ideals, a new culture of greatness
I agree with this wholeheartedly, I disagree with the ideals of the past and the present.
Which is more degenerate, having everyone on birth control which may or may not be hormonal or having a bunch of single mothers and people having abortions?
>Hormone based??
Where did I imply that it is hormone based? Where did I say that the solution was "THE PILL"?

>Stopping abortion outweighs everything
All this will do is fuck with everything and make it more complicated and/or convoluted for them to fail. Why force them to lose their period, fuck up their late-life biology, and then worst-case scenario marry Jamal in some shitty wedding or even just legal documents before pumping out a niglet or 3 before he fucks off. Great plan. Next you'll say that we need to stop niglet and pedro abortions as well because they are also immoral.

>give me a good reason why the federal government shouldnt control the hormonal balance of your body
because it is insane.

I would rather pay a couple cents more than have a kid suffer because his family is retarded

>good luck forming a traditionalist movement in the age of post-modernism
Not so much a traditionalist movement, just reconnecting to our past. Post-modernism is well suited for this because it's based on deconstruction and soon the taboo of tradition will fall at its hands, I feel as though in some parts of academia and subversive culture this is happening already. I hope we can agree that reconnecting to these past cultures of greatness and being inspired by them will help us build our own.

>>Stopping abortion outweighs everything
Nice strawman
>Why force them to lose their period
non-hormonal birth control
>worst-case scenario marry Jamal in some shitty wedding or even just legal documents before pumping out a niglet or 3 before he fucks off.
Make the punishment for abandoning a marriage more severe
non-hormonal birth control then

why are you ignoring my post ? Are you really so stupid that you can't respond?

I'm not going to nitpick over wording when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You're right, I should have worded it differently, end of discussion. Now tits or gtfo.

>If someone cannot provide for their children they should not have them, do you find this offensive?
Not at all, I fully agree with what you are trying to accomplish (besides using implant/hormonal birth control), and if I was in charge of an authoritarian government I'd put policies like this in place. I just don't think government intervention is the right way to solve these problems (unless people vote for them), instread you have to sway people into believing premartial sex, single parents, children born out of wedlock are bad for society and the induvidual, or else people will feel like the state is oppressing them.

It's got nothing to do with wording, you are just dodging because you don't have an actual argument. If you think a fetus should be its own individual with a right to life then you have to accept the same for sperm, they are the same until the brain is done developing in the mother and the baby has consciousness