PDA

View Full Version : Teenage girls to be sterilized in Britain?


Jvstice
03-05-2008, 12:50 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514542

Arcesious
03-05-2008, 12:57 AM
An excellent idea. I hope this idea carries over to many other countries. This will very likely help lower abortion rates... At least some country is doing something about this problem.

Inyri
03-05-2008, 01:13 AM
Something about the way that entire article was written makes me wonder how serious a publication that is.

DeadYorick
03-05-2008, 01:20 AM
I think that better education would be more effective then sterilization. Since girls should know from a very young age to wear a condom or take the pill. Sterilization should only be a last resort. Because the girls know that they aren't going to get pregnant when they are teenagers. But they don't know life skills that could be important when they are adults and they get pregnant when they are in college or working 10 hours a day. Or even worse they continue to do unprotected sex without thinking of the dangers of pregnancy and contract an STD (Or STI as they are called now). With better education the girls can actually learn the dangers of pregnancy.

Inyri
03-05-2008, 01:23 AM
Because the girls know that they aren't going to get pregnant when they are teenagers.Huh? Girls can go through puberty as young as 8 (in rare cases). As soon as they do they are physically capable of becoming pregnant.

Rogue Nine
03-05-2008, 01:25 AM
An excellent idea. I hope this idea carries over to many other countries. This will very likely help lower abortion rates... At least some country is doing something about this problem.
You're bloody kidding me right? Personal liberties be damned so the government can play chaperone to teenage girls without their consent? What's next, mandating that everyone must have a state-approved official holding your hands as you cross the street to ensure not only your safety, but that you also do not jaywalk? Ludicrous.

I should also point out that that link isn't so much an article reporting on some sort of scientific discovery, but more a self-righteous editorial rant that is supremely flawed in several lines of reasoning. The most obvious and glaring one is if teenage girls were sterilized for five or so years, wouldn't that make them more likely to go out and be promiscuous? Removing the fear of being pregnant and all the challenges it presents would be completely and utterly stupid. If the author of the article wants to be the moral police, then surely there are better avenues to advocate than this ridiculous idea.

DeadYorick
03-05-2008, 01:26 AM
Huh? Girls can go through puberty as young as 8 (in rare cases). As soon as they do they are physically capable of becoming pregnant.

I am talking about the side effects of sterilization. Plus this is an excellent example of why education at a younger age is more effective.

Inyri
03-05-2008, 01:31 AM
Maybe parents should start parenting. I think that would solve a lot of problems.

DarthJebus05
03-05-2008, 03:29 AM
Aren't you all forgetting that this might increase the number of rapes?

And mentioned in the above posts, this will increase under age sex.

Bad idea, whoever thought of it should be ashamed of themselves.

Inyri
03-05-2008, 03:40 AM
Why would it affect the number of rapes in any way? I don't think the rapists of the world are thinking 'omg must not rape, might have to pay child support!'

Emperor Devon
03-05-2008, 03:54 AM
Aren't you all forgetting that this might increase the number of rapes?

Um, no. Generally rapists are more concerned about being caught than they are on making child support payments.

(Edit: Damn you, Inyri! Use my remarks, will you...)

I seriously doubt this would impact the number of rapes one way or another. They're rarely even done for sexual reasons in the first place.

Bad idea, whoever thought of it should be ashamed of themselves.

What? You think in decades where teen sex has become increasingly problematic that this person was the only one to propose mandatory sterilization?

Tommycat
03-05-2008, 03:55 AM
I agree with Inyri. It won't increase rapes. It will however cause a larger number of teens to feel more free about sex. This may in fact increase STD transmission. That is a far worse problem in my estimation. Lower fear of pregnancy, increased sexual activity, lower reason for protection, increased spread of STD's.

Oh yes this is a great idea, I think every country should get behind this

Totenkopf
03-05-2008, 04:18 AM
The most obvious and glaring one is if teenage girls were sterilized for five or so years, wouldn't that make them more likely to go out and be promiscuous?

Only fallacious if you disregard her observation that they're doing it anyway w/o the benefit of sterilization, thus there's likely to be no/little impact on the desire to pursue recreational sex in the first place. However, I would tend to agree that if you remove the negative incentives for doing things, people are less likely to be deterred from trying them. Still, given the number of girls/young women having babies they can't support financially (nevermind emotionally), a temporary sterilization req for qualifying for govt aide is, in our increasingly eroticized and secular society, a reasonable step. No matter how much education you give people, there are always going to be those that disregard it on purpose or in the heat of the moment. Frankly, if you can't keep your legs closed, I see no reason I should have to provide money to support your child (or subsidize your abortion for that matter) through my taxes. Frankly, this problem doesn't lend itself to simple solutions. Merely saying that parents should exercise more parental responsibility is as naive as saying "just say no" will stop it. Children, especially by the time they are capable of becoming sexually active, probably have as much or more outside influence impacting their decision making as any input they get from their parents.

What? You think in decades where teen sex has become increasingly problematic that this person was the only one to propose mandatory sterilization?

Wasn't there talk of putting welfare mothers on Norplant in the not too distant past?

Balderdash
03-05-2008, 04:31 AM
Something about the way that entire article was written makes me wonder how serious a publication that is.
The Mail is a major national newspaper in the UK, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

The most obvious and glaring one is if teenage girls were sterilized for five or so years, wouldn't that make them more likely to go out and be promiscuous?
Rofl, exactly.

In all honesty... I'm neither a teenager or a girl, but if I was sterile I would imagine I'd loosen up some myself... STDs be damned.

Pho3nix
03-05-2008, 04:48 AM
An excellent idea. I hope this idea carries over to many other countries. This will very likely help lower abortion rates... At least some country is doing something about this problem.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight

Proper sex-education would be far more effective.

Darth InSidious
03-05-2008, 05:30 AM
Something about the way that entire article was written makes me wonder how serious a publication that is.
The Mail is traditionally meant to be read by wives of people who read the Times.

More generally, it's a paranoid joke which no-one of middling intelligence or above reads.

It's also significant to note that this suggestion comes from the Cabinet Nobody with the silliest name.

In all seriousness, if we paid attention to every rubbish or ridiculous idea that the Blair/Brown government came up with, we'd be up to our elbows in 'Huh?'s.

Just look at the idea that we could abolish the Lord Chancellor....

Tommycat
03-05-2008, 05:51 AM
The Mail is a major national newspaper in the UK, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
And for those that are not up to speed on this, Its the same company that spawned Fox News Channel, and it's major affiliate is SkyNews.

I want to say they also happen to be the ones that own "Weekly World News" but I may be wrong on that. I know they do own a tabloid with that reputation though.

Ray Jones
03-05-2008, 09:20 AM
With better education the girls can actually learn the dangers of pregnancy.OK, so now I'm curious. What dangers?

Arcesious
03-05-2008, 09:24 AM
I don't believe i've embarrassed myself in any way, those of you who thought my reaction was bad. If these girls won't learn to control themselves, even after plenty of sex-ed, then someone should take charge and stop the problem. This is for teenage girls, not adult women. The rights of children and teenagwers are different than the rights of adults. Sex-ed will help, but there's bound to be tons of teenage girls who simply don't care and aren't going to be careful. This is not immoralyl takign away their rights- Teenage girls aren't even physically meant to have chilren properly at their age! Yes, the have puberty in teenage years, which allows them to get pregnant, but their body is not fully developed enough to have the pregnancy correctly. miscarries, STI's, etc, etc, happen with teenage pregnancy much more often than with adults. This problem won't go away by simply having more sex-ed. It's goign to keep happening. More abortions, more ruined and messed lives because teenage girls weren't careful, unless if soemthing is done. Yes, sterilization isn't perfected yet though, so this idea shoudln't be done until it is so that the side-effects of it removed.

SilentScope001
03-05-2008, 09:45 AM
To those who somehow think this is a 'good idea':

1. Tell me exactly how UK will pay for the sterilization.
2. Why not boys? Why only girls?
3. Why up to 17?
4. What about girls who get adverse side-effects because of sterilization?
5. Sterlization means that people will be less likely to use safe sex. They're sterilized, right? So when the sterlization wears off, they will not be able to do safe sex, meaning teenage pregenacy may increase.
6. Speaking of 'safe sex', what about STDs?
7. What about female monks? Why do they need to be sterilized if they already don't like sex?
8. What if I want to have a baby?

EDIT:
9. Have you adequatly learnt why previous 'comulsory sterilization' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization) programs failed, and how best you can solve the errors associated with those programs?

Jae Onasi
03-05-2008, 09:56 AM
What happened to the males being responsible, too? They can't bother themselves to put on a condom? Or the boys don't care about it because after one or a few nights they're going to move on to someone else, and the gov't can take care of the girl if she happens to get pregnant so they don't have to?

It takes two to tango. The chance of the girl getting pregnant drops dramatically if the boy takes some responsibility for preventing pregnancy, too. If you're going to sterilize girls (which I think is silly), then you should give all the guys a little snip, too--after all, it's now reversible.

Bee Hoon
03-05-2008, 10:12 AM
What a sexist article >.>

It was a moral issue but the stigma was born out of necessity: a desperate attempt to stop girls from doing what came naturally until a father and a home could be provided.

Boys have always wanted to have sex and notch up "scores" on the bedpost.

So it's ok for the boys to boink around as much as they want, since they won't be the ones getting pregnant? :/

@Arc, make the teenage boys control *their* raging hormones, then you can comment all you want about the girls. Why don't we just sterilize all the randy males around, hm? After all, lonely ovums (read:eggs) won't produce any babies>.>

DeadYorick
03-05-2008, 10:49 AM
OK, so now I'm curious. What dangers?

There are a lot of dangers with childbirth. Firstly the fact that you could die with child birth. The baby could come out feet first. They may have to cut you open to get the baby out. Plus the fact that is all one of the most painful things a human being can go through

Jae Onasi
03-05-2008, 11:07 AM
The risk of death in pregnancy/childbirth for a teen is really quite low. The risk of a breech birth is very low, and it's easy to detect so that the baby can either be turned around or mom given a c-section to prevent potential complications. I've had 2 c-sections, and while it's not on my top ten list of favorite things to do and it is major surgery, it's not like I didn't have anesthesia when they 'cut me open to get the baby out'. The anesthesiologists were all very vigilant in making sure any pain or problems were prevented in the first place or dealt with immediately.

Yes, childbirth hurts, but you know, we can deal with that, too. Thank God for epidurals.

Ray Jones
03-05-2008, 11:28 AM
There are a lot of dangers with childbirth. Firstly the fact that you could die with child birth. The baby could come out feet first. They may have to cut you open to get the baby out. Plus the fact that is all one of the most painful things a human being can go throughYou know, that was a rather rhetorical question. Also, those things you list are dangers of a birth, not pregnancy.

Plus, I'd blatantly state that only 0.1% percent, if at all, of the abortions around the world happen due to "the dangers" coming with the birth. Now refocus that on teenage abortion and we are on par with *zero* percent.


And yes, a birth is painful, but painfulness is hardly a danger.

Inyri
03-05-2008, 01:34 PM
Teenage girls aren't even physically meant to have chilren properly at their age! Yes, the have puberty in teenage years, which allows them to get pregnant, but their body is not fully developed enough to have the pregnancy correctly.Their body wouldn't go through puberty if it wasn't ready for the consequences. Puberty happens because the body is ready, not for ****s and giggles.

Yes, sterilization isn't perfected yet though, so this idea shoudln't be done until it is so that the side-effects of it removed.So I take it since you're so pro-sterilization you'd be willing to be sterilized as well? Or are you stuck in the 1950's still?

Web Rider
03-05-2008, 01:36 PM
An excellent idea. I hope this idea carries over to many other countries. This will very likely help lower abortion rates... At least some country is doing something about this problem.

Will it? Maybe it will just postpone them. Just because a woman is 20 instead of 17 doesn't mean they still WANT a child. Lets say this plan went into action. Well, now you're teaching girls that from 12 to 17 they're sterile. What's the upside to no babies when having sex? oh, more sex! I know if I couldn't get anyone pregnant I'd probly be having loads of sex. Which means more STD transmission, which IMO, is FAR worse than abortions. I mean, aside from the fact that this is punishing all girls for the actions of a few(yes, a FEW), the results of "temporary" sterilization could be permanent sterilization.

Yes, these systems are NOT as safe as they're made out to be, women who "wear" them long enough can be made permanently sterile.
Only fallacious if you disregard her observation that they're doing it anyway w/o the benefit of sterilization, thus there's likely to be no/little impact on the desire to pursue recreational sex in the first place.
Like I said about punishing those who did nothing "wrong", the reason it WILL increase sex is because girls who normally wouldn't have sex due to fear of babies would be much more likly to do so. Some girls are having a lot of sex anyway, not all of them.

This is for teenage girls, not adult women. The rights of children and teenagwers are different than the rights of adults.
Which is really the clincher isn't it? People under 18 aren't people, they're property. I mean, how can we even claim to care about the dying babies in Uganda or some other god-forsaken nation when we're ready and willing to treat our OWN children like they aren't real people?

I'm no fan of teen pregnancy, but I mean, damn, show a little respect, I was those ages once, and while I'm not a girl, as others have pointed out, it takes two to tango. Girls don't just "get pregnant", the sperm must merge with a readied ova to produce a viable fertilized egg. Which means MEN are involved in the process.

Girls will have no(or much less) problem keeping their legs shut, as someone phrased it, if we get guys to stop asking them to spread 'em.

On a final note, yes, actually, most girls can go through pregnancy just fine from ages 15 and up. Historically it was actually much lower, where 18 made you an old woman, so girls could give birth at much younger ages. That has somewhat faded in modern times, though it often feels like it's moving back.

the whole idea is disgusting, if primarily just for human rights reasons.

Quanon
03-05-2008, 01:51 PM
An excellent idea. I hope this idea carries over to many other countries. This will very likely help lower abortion rates... At least some country is doing something about this problem.

IMO this is far more worse then abortion...

This taking away girls/women deam to EVER have a child.

You might view abortion as some kind of murder, but if a girl/women is aware she can't support the child decently...

Well this just IMO, but I found this... well disturbing.

Its just far more radicale to take away the whole process of procreation then welll cut if off in progress.

Really... disturbing

Darth333
03-05-2008, 01:51 PM
If these girls won't learn to control themselves, even after plenty of sex-ed, then someone should take charge and stop the problem.
:eyeraise: What about the males' responsibility? As far as I know it takes a woman and a man to make a baby...

I can't believe we are even discussing such this. When I read the article I wasn't even sure if it was meant to be serious or not. It's a disgusting proposition.

Quanon
03-05-2008, 02:20 PM
:eyeraise: What about the males' responsibility? As far as I know it takes a woman and a man to make a baby...

I can't believe we are even discussing such this. When I read the article I wasn't even sure if it was meant to be serious or not. It's a disgusting proposition.

Agreed, why actually girls, they could easly take the man and cuts his... b**** off, it would be the same.

adamqd
03-05-2008, 02:34 PM
I agree that unwanted Pregnancy and underage sex needs to drop, but the method is ridicules, I think there saying 12-17 because it's ILLEGAL to have sex, never mind have children until your 16

Pavlos
03-05-2008, 03:11 PM
Something about the way that entire article was written makes me wonder how serious a publication that is.

The Daily Mail is a joke. Unfortunately it represents the part of the electorate that parties are most interested in.

Headlines range from "Immigration to cause fall in house prices" to "Drop in house prices may result in drop in house prices."

I still find it depressing that the father of modern liberty and liberalism comes from the same country as the Daily Heil.

InSid's already made reference to it but an expansive guide to British newspapers comes from Yes, Prime Minister - a sitcom about British politics that regardless of its age always seems to contain relevant criticism of any and all governments :p.

Prime Minister Hacker: I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country*; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

*The USSR, for clarity :p

Totenkopf
03-05-2008, 03:22 PM
Only fallacious if you disregard her observation that they're doing it anyway w/o the benefit of sterilization, thus there's likely to be no/little impact on the desire to pursue recreational sex in the first place.


Like I said about punishing those who did nothing "wrong", the reason it WILL increase sex is because girls who normally wouldn't have sex due to fear of babies would be much more likly to do so. Some girls are having a lot of sex anyway, not all of them.

Problem is, any guess as to the actual amount of any increase is sheer speculation. If a lot of "underage" girls are having sex now for recreational purposes, there is no actual way to know if the rest of them are holding off b/c they value their virginity, have more foresight, family pressures, ad nauseam. She, too, is also guilty of speculating due to her assumption about the actual percentage of girls "doing it" at the moment.


Prime Minister Hacker: I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country*; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.


Too funny. Gotta love cynical humor. :p

Web Rider
03-05-2008, 04:32 PM
I agree that unwanted Pregnancy and underage sex needs to drop, but the method is ridicules, I think there saying 12-17 because it's ILLEGAL to have sex, never mind have children until your 16

really? It's perfectly legal here in the states so long as you're within 3 years of age and one of you isn't over 18(in cali), other states have lower ages.

Darth333
03-05-2008, 04:38 PM
I agree that unwanted Pregnancy and underage sex needs to drop, but the method is ridicules, I think there saying 12-17 because it's ILLEGAL to have sex, never mind have children until your 16
Every jurisdiction has its own laws so that is not case everywhere. Besides, as to the age of consent to sexual relationships it varies greatly from country to country (and I think in the US it's a state thing). Dunno how accurate it is but this page should give you an idea: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

In Canada it can go as young as 12 yrs old if the other person is no more than 2yrs older.

*Don*
03-05-2008, 09:23 PM
All this talk of sterilizing girls reminds me of the novels Brave New World and 1984.
I don't know why....

DarthJebus05
03-05-2008, 09:46 PM
Why would it affect the number of rapes in any way? I don't think the rapists of the world are thinking 'omg must not rape, might have to pay child support!'

Maybe I should have said: It will increase the number of unprotected rapes, thus meaning no condoms. If the rapist has a sexual transmitted disease, imagine the suffering the girl would go through.

There are more downsides to this idea than there are upsides.

:EDIT: Forgot to quote this:

6. Speaking of 'safe sex', what about STDs?

DeadYorick
03-05-2008, 10:33 PM
I doubt a Rapist is going to do protected sex. Just imagine a Rapist tying a girl to a chair and ready to do it when he suddenly says.

"Oh sorry I forgot to put a condom on." I think that Rapists are going to just do it quickly and quietly. They don't have to worry about pregnancy remember and I doubt they are going to care about STDS.

All this talk of sterilizing girls reminds me of the novels Brave New World and 1984.
I don't know why....

Maybe because they both have big dystopian themes and Brave new world has Sterilization in it?

*Don*
03-05-2008, 10:48 PM
Maybe because they both have big dystopian themes and Brave new world has Sterilization in it?

lol, well yes.
I was trying to be sarcastic.
It's so much harder to do sarcasm in a online forum.

DarthJebus05
03-05-2008, 11:02 PM
I doubt a Rapist is going to do protected sex. Just imagine a Rapist tying a girl to a chair and ready to do it when he suddenly says.

"Oh sorry I forgot to put a condom on." I think that Rapists are going to just do it quickly and quietly. They don't have to worry about pregnancy remember and I doubt they are going to care about STDS.

Lets say you're a rapist. And you might get aids from a girl you rape. Would you rape without a condom? I know I wouldn't, and I'm not saying I will or ever rape, but if I forgot 'my' condom, I would leave the girl there and go find another one after I got the condom first.

Rogue Nine
03-05-2008, 11:08 PM
I still fail to see what teenage sterilization has to do with rape. How will the fact that a girl is sterilized change how and why rapists rape? Sterilization is a contraceptive measure, not an anti-STD measure.

TK-8252
03-05-2008, 11:10 PM
I'm a little too lazy to read the article in its entirety, but is this proposal something that is mandatory for all girls or some kind of voluntary thing that the government will pay for girls to be sterilized for a few years?

I would doubt that something like this could be mandatory, otherwise Britain would have joined the likes of Communist China when it comes to human rights and personal freedom.

Jvstice
03-05-2008, 11:12 PM
The Daily Mail is a joke. Unfortunately it represents the part of the electorate that parties are most interested in.


Thanks. I'd wondered about them as a source and how serious a possibility it was to actually happen.
Lets say you're a rapist. And you might get aids from a girl you rape. Would you rape without a condom? I know I wouldn't, and I'm not saying I will or ever rape, but if I forgot 'my' condom, I would leave the girl there and go find another one after I got the condom first.

I don't think that rapists tend to either be thoughtful, or the brightest tools in the shed.

TK: Mandatory, but supposedly temporary.

DarthJebus05
03-06-2008, 12:13 AM
I still fail to see what teenage sterilization has to do with rape. How will the fact that a girl is sterilized change how and why rapists rape? Sterilization is a contraceptive measure, not an anti-STD measure.

Men tend to like sex better if it's unprotected. Thus it will cause all those sickos out there to prey on teenagers even more without the fear of getting the girl pregnant. But it will cause the girl to contract a STD, possibly killing her.

DeadYorick
03-06-2008, 12:18 AM
Thus it will cause all those sickos out there to prey on teenagers even more without the fear of getting the girl pregnant. .

Why would wether or not she gets pregnant be a factor? Like it has been mentioned before

Originally Posted by InyriForge
Why would it affect the number of rapes in any way? I don't think the rapists of the world are thinking 'omg must not rape, might have to pay child support!'

I doubt a rapist would really care whether the girl gets pregnant or not. They would probably kill the girl afterwards. This is the way many rape cases go. Plus Rapists don't really care about getting an STD. All they care about is filling some empty void in their life by raping an innocent girl.

Rogue Nine
03-06-2008, 12:33 AM
Men tend to like sex better if it's unprotected. Thus it will cause all those sickos out there to prey on teenagers even more without the fear of getting the girl pregnant. But it will cause the girl to contract a STD, possibly killing her.
First off, most rapes are not about the sex, but power and domination. Rapists do not rape just for the sex.

Secondly, as asked before, why would a rapist care if they got girls pregnant? If they're raping someone, it's a pretty good bet they care very little for their victim's well-bring.

Thirdly, I have no idea what point you're trying to make with the STD reference. Again, sterilization is a contraceptive measure and has absolutely nothing to do with STDs.

Jae Onasi
03-06-2008, 12:50 AM
Men tend to like sex better if it's unprotected. Yeah, well it's time for the men to grow up and be responsible. You don't want a kid? You take the responsibility for not having a kid. The difference in sensation is made into far more big of a deal than it actually is. If men are going to tango, the little man needs to be suited up appropriately.

Jvstice
03-06-2008, 01:05 AM
Yeah, well it's time for the men to grow up and be responsible. You don't want a kid? You take the responsibility for not having a kid. The difference in sensation is made into far more big of a deal than it actually is. If men are going to tango, the little man needs to be suited up appropriately.

I agree, and you'd have to have a society and a court system that takes it a lot more serious than ours does if you really wanted to impact this.

Jae Onasi
03-06-2008, 01:39 AM
Or we could just parent the kids properly. My kids are my responsibility--not society's, and certainly not the court system's.

Jvstice
03-06-2008, 01:51 AM
I plan on making time for my kids when I have them, but I can't speak for every other parent out there. And frankly, I don't look for a lot of people to suddenly start taking their kids seriously. Many do. Many don't.

I don't look for that to suddenly change in either case.

DarthJebus05
03-06-2008, 02:02 AM
First off, most rapes are not about the sex, but power and domination. Rapists do not rape just for the sex.

Secondly, as asked before, why would a rapist care if they got girls pregnant? If they're raping someone, it's a pretty good bet they care very little for their victim's well-bring.

Thirdly, I have no idea what point you're trying to make with the STD reference. Again, sterilization is a contraceptive measure and has absolutely nothing to do with STDs.

Most rapes are about the power. Other rapes are just to satisfy a lonely man (or womens) sexual pleasure.

As for the pregnancy, what would you do if you found our someone is carrying your baby? Possibly babies? And if the police find out it was you who raped the girl, wouldn't you have to pay child support?

They would want to have unprotected sex, since they can't get pregnant, and what if their boyfriend has a STD? Thats what I'm trying to say.

Rogue Nine
03-06-2008, 02:25 AM
Most rapes are about the power. Other rapes are just to satisfy a lonely man (or womens) sexual pleasure.
Right, but does that make them any more palatable? Rape is rape, no matter what reason it is conducted for.

As for the pregnancy, what would you do if you found our someone is carrying your baby? Possibly babies? And if the police find out it was you who raped the girl, wouldn't you have to pay child support?
I think child support will be the least of a rapist's worries if the police find out and can prove in a court of law that they committed the crime.

They would want to have unprotected sex, since they can't get pregnant, and what if their boyfriend has a STD? Thats what I'm trying to say.
I still don't understand what you're trying to get at. I thought we were talking about rape and now you bring up the teenage girls and their possibly infected boyfriends? You make no sense.

Your original point was that mandatory sterilization of teenage girls would increase unprotected rape. You have been asked to justify this hypothesis, yet you have not provided a logical, satisfactory explanation.

Totenkopf
03-06-2008, 02:28 AM
Most rapes are about the power. Other rapes are just to satisfy a lonely man (or womens) sexual pleasure.

As for the pregnancy, what would you do if you found our someone is carrying your baby? Possibly babies? And if the police find out it was you who raped the girl, wouldn't you have to pay child support?

They would want to have unprotected sex, since they can't get pregnant, and what if their boyfriend has a STD? Thats what I'm trying to say.


Actually, in the case of rapes, I seriously doubt the rapist is remotely concerned about child support, all the more so if he ends up in prison. But remember.....he's a CRIMINAL, and they usually don't care about the legal nicities in the first place. As to the STD and boyfriend issue......how concerned is he that she might give him an STD as well? If he only cares about his pleasure, she's probably better off w/o him in the first place. She's the ultimate gate keeper, as long as she keeps it locked she can't get an infection (unless, naturally, he's also a rapist). ;) Any girl/guy that puts themself in the position of contracting an STD either deserves it or should find themselves a less fickle and more responsible partner. After killing the the lout of course. :xp:

DarthJebus05
03-06-2008, 03:24 AM
Right, but does that make them any more palatable? Rape is rape, no matter what reason it is conducted for.


I think child support will be the least of a rapist's worries if the police find out and can prove in a court of law that they committed the crime.


I still don't understand what you're trying to get at. I thought we were talking about rape and now you bring up the teenage girls and their possibly infected boyfriends? You make no sense.

Your original point was that mandatory sterilization of teenage girls would increase unprotected rape. You have been asked to justify this hypothesis, yet you have not provided a logical, satisfactory explanation.

Whatever, I know that you have a problem with me.

~snipped~ There's no need for that. --Jae

The poster above me understands,.

~snipped~

-Girl gets sterilized
-Girl has no fear of getting pregnant
-Girl and boy have unprotected sex
-Girl contracts STD

Why does the girl get a STD? Because she had unprotected sex because she was sterilized.

Keep it civil, please. --Jae

Rogue Nine
03-06-2008, 03:57 AM
Oh, so this is a completely different point from the whole rape topic. Why didn't you just say so?

Whatever, I know that you have a problem with me.
I actually don't have a problem with you, I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind your points.
deleted responses to comments no longer in his post. --Jae

-Girl gets sterilized
-Girl has no fear of getting pregnant
-Girl and boy have unprotected sex
-Girl contracts STD

Why does the girl get a STD? Because she had unprotected sex because she was sterilized.
Again, sterilization is a contraceptive measure, NOT an anti-STD measure. It is meant to stop procreation, not sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Were girls forced to undergo mandatory sterilization, they would most likely be informed of this fact. Thus, it would be extremely unlikely for a girl to say "Oh, I'm sterilized, that means I can't get pregnant and catch STDs, so I'm going to have unprotected sex!" rendering your point rather unfounded. To assume that they would think sterilization gives them carte blanche to go around and have unprotected sex and not worry about STDs is ludicrous.

DarthJebus05
03-06-2008, 04:23 AM
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have gotten agitated.

Thats what I've been meaning, even if girls are sterilized, they can still catch STD's. But if they can't get pregnant, they would want to have unprotected sex. As hormones can be more powerful the willpower. I remember reading a story about a girl and her 'sex buddy', the condom broke and she said "Doesn't matter, keep going". She caught a STD and almost died from it.

Again, I apologize.

True_Avery
03-06-2008, 04:43 AM
Rapists don't usually think about how sterile a woman is before raping her. The smarter ones will douche or clean the girl if they didn't use a condom. And, even without getting the girl pregnant there are hundreds, if not thousands of different ways to catch rapists. Fluids, hairs, victim description, etc.

Also, not all rapists have STDs. STDs, despite popular belief, are not as common as you'd think. It isn't as simple as looking at a crowd of people and saying 1/4 of them have an STD. If the two people are smart, and know the signs, then they wont contract an STD. If someone has an STD, regardless of protection or not, it can still be passed on to the partner.

-Girl gets sterilized
-Girl has no fear of getting pregnant
-Girl and boy have unprotected sex
-Girl contracts STD

Why does the girl get a STD? Because she had unprotected sex because she was sterilized.
Yeah, because sterile girls are so much better at this sex thing. *rolls eyes*

Sterilization wont make nymphomaniacs out of the girls. It will make them sterile. Will that make them more open for sex? Possibly, and that depends on the girl in question. Any person that runs recklessly into sex, homosexual/straight, sterile/fertile, etc is asking for trouble regardless. The dangers of sex are not limited to the physical aspects, as the emotional connection and injuries created by sex can be just as harmful. I have seen plenty of people be ruined by sex without ever having a child or an STD.

Also, again, you seem to believe that STDs are just waiting for you to slip up to grab you. In order for your theory to be correct, the girls would be sterilized and then try and have sex with as many people as possible, and even then there is a chance of nobody ending up with an STD. There are girls that would do that, but the thing is... girls like that would sleep around regardless of being sterile or not.

Thats what I've been meaning, even if girls are sterilized, they can still catch STD's. But if they can't get pregnant, they would want to have unprotected sex. As hormones can be more powerful the willpower. I remember reading a story about a girl and her 'sex buddy', the condom broke and she said "Doesn't matter, keep going". She caught a STD and almost died from it.
Yep, because -all- girls are like that. Again, you are talking about a small group of girls who screw people whenever they get the inclination. In another word: morons.

So, she said keep on going? In my personal opinion she deserved what she got. Only a complete and utter idiot, regardless of being in the moment or not, would continue going after a condom breaks. It takes an even bigger idiot to not try and find out that your partner has an STD. I believe the system in which she threw herself into is called "Natural Selection".

Please don't put those of us with intelligence into the same league as the girls you are describing. Pregnancy is a risk of sex, but it is hardly the only reason people stay away from it.

Will people have sex more when they cannot get pregnant? Yeah. Look at married couples.

Will it lead them into a hellhole of STDs? If you live in Africa, yeah.

If I'm misinterpreting something, tell me and I'll correct it.

Q
03-06-2008, 05:27 AM
Why sterilization? Why not some sort of hormone repression therapy?

Or how about we just snip the nerves to the genitalia of all kids and weld them back together when they turn 18?

Totenkopf
03-06-2008, 06:49 AM
I didn't get the impression that the woman in the article was talking about permanent sterilization but probably more along the lines of what you suggest (think something along the lines of Norplant). As for the guys, I'm sure there's some drug that the pharmaceutical companies would be happy to develop if they haven't already.

adamqd
03-06-2008, 07:00 AM
Every jurisdiction has its own laws so that is not case everywhere. Besides, as to the age of consent to sexual relationships it varies greatly from country to country (and I think in the US it's a state thing). Dunno how accurate it is but this page should give you an idea: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

In Canada it can go as young as 12 yrs old if the other person is no more than 2yrs older.

I was speaking in relation to the Article, "Teenage girls to be sterilized in Britain",
not "Children to be made baron in South Carolina", people on this forum have a habit of taking a subject and running with it lol. but yes you are of course right in what you say, only I was talking specifically not generally.

Bee Hoon
03-06-2008, 08:32 AM
*is amused, in a depressed way*

@DarthJebus05,
As Niner has repeatedly pointed out, rapists are not exactly worried about whether or not they spawn babies from the act. Besides that, not all girls are of the mindset 'BOINK UNTIL THE WORLD GOES UP IN FLAMES!'. Even if that were the case, wouldn't it better to tackle the problem at its root and calmly explain to said girls why it is not a good idea to do so? Ditto for boys.

@QLiveur, you try that and let us know how it goes;p Bear in mind that nerves...don't heal very well, to put it mildly.

Ray Jones
03-06-2008, 09:31 AM
Rapists are in no way concerned about their victims. Otherwise they would not rape them in the first place, all along with the girl begging him to stop or something. DarthJebus05, you make it sound as if all girls would just wait to be raped, and as if both victim and rapist take themselves all time in this world to have a nice time together, eh. I think you should get your view on that matter straight asap, I mean I would in no way be surprised if the next thing you say is it's the women's fault when they get raped 'cause they wear skirts.

Also the primarily goal of safe sex is not contraception but protection against STDs of any kind, almost every condom advertisement is telling us that.

Arcesious
03-06-2008, 01:51 PM
Well these problems will never be truly fixed until all of humanity learns common sense, which will never happen, but it's important that we try to help most of humanity learn common sense, even if it doesn't completely fix it, the effort will make problems like these better.

Jae Onasi
03-06-2008, 02:21 PM
Well these problems will never be truly fixed until all of humanity learns common sense.
Define 'common sense' and how it can possibly be applied universally.

Jvstice
03-06-2008, 02:28 PM
unless you're going to get draconian, you really can't do much other than mitigate the worst effects of problems like these. More education's always a good thing and would make a difference for most I think, but there are still people for whom it won't really change their behavior.

Web Rider
03-06-2008, 03:56 PM
Well these problems will never be truly fixed until all of humanity learns common sense, which will never happen, but it's important that we try to help most of humanity learn common sense, even if it doesn't completely fix it, the effort will make problems like these better.

As Jae gets at, since "common sense" is not a universal standard, you(not YOU you, hypohtetical you) are either arguing for everyone to do what they feel is personally best, or you are arguing for everyone to adopt your common sense.

Totenkopf
03-06-2008, 04:41 PM
While there are no doubt some aspects of "common sense" that may be rooted in culture (flashing the "peace sign" may be interpreted differently somewhere else), there are plenty of examples that are more universal. Granted, some degree of education is necessary (either theorhetical or via observation) to make an informed "common sensical" decision (water and electricity), but many things transcend cultures. For instance, don't wipe your arse with your bare hand and then eat something with it before cleaning that hand off. Don't just rip something out of someone's hand that's bigger than you (or even smaller) and not expect a bad reaction. Don't flash your cash/wealth while walking about in a poorly lit or crime ridden neighborhood. Don't have unprotected sex and think that there won't be any problems at all. There are no doubt a great many more examples, but I'll stop here.

Jvstice
03-06-2008, 11:15 PM
I'd argue that there are places where you saying that some of those are common sense would be utterly astonishing to some people.

Corinthian
03-07-2008, 02:23 AM
I don't see what the big problem with this is. If the girl is going to have sex, she's going to have sex. I can't imagine how anyone could be opposed to something that would reduce the abortion rate, the teen pregnancy rate, and reduce the rate of population growth - isn't just about everybody concerned about at least one of those? As long as the sterilization is safe and not permanent, I have no problem with it. Now, this very well may have some unintended side-effects, but assuming it's safe and effective, I see nothing wrong with it.

I mean, I'd prefer it wasn't necessary, but I gave up on members of the human race keeping their various organs in their pants years ago, this is the next best thing.

PoiuyWired
03-07-2008, 05:06 PM
You mean, they are all dangling out now? Fortunately/unfortunately I cannot see that from where I am standing.

Well, it should be an option for the girls, but not something to be forced on them. I mean, there are side-effects to any chemicals we take, known or unknown.

Corinthian
03-07-2008, 06:09 PM
Actually, this should be a decision the parents make, because as irresponsible as parents tend to be these days, teens are even worse. However, I agree it should be tested before it sees widespread use.

Ctrl Alt Del
03-07-2008, 06:24 PM
How wrong does it sounds when it's forced on them? We sterilize dogs and cats and cows, why not humans too?

The whole concept is ridiculous and brutally murder my precepts of personal liberties.

Lets say you're a rapist. And you might get aids from a girl you rape. Would you rape without a condom? I know I wouldn't, and I'm not saying I will or ever rape, but if I forgot 'my' condom, I would leave the girl there and go find another one after I got the condom first.
I think you're overestimating the intelligence of the rapist.

Totenkopf
03-08-2008, 03:53 AM
You'd probably have to be a pretty conscientious rapist to be worried about whether you'll be getting an std, especially given how "normal" people often proceed to have sex even if they don't have one anyway. I don't think a rapist is going to see a woman and then look in his wallet and go..."Damn, gotta get some condoms and wait for the next potential victim".

swphreak
03-09-2008, 12:44 AM
-Girl gets sterilized
-Girl has no fear of getting pregnant
-Girl and boy have unprotected sex
-Girl contracts STD
Are you saying all boys have STDs, or are you assuming STDs appear out of then air when two people have sex?



Should teenage girls be "sterilized"? Yes and no. Yes, because teenagers are stupid. No, because I think that violates some basic human rights or something.

Inyri
03-09-2008, 01:47 AM
Maybe he thinks STD's are created during a sex act. Seems clear to me he has no idea how the world works, which makes me wonder why people keep replying to his posts. :lol:

Bee Hoon
03-09-2008, 01:59 AM
Because it boggles the mind:P

Totenkopf
03-09-2008, 03:04 AM
Probably b/c some people wish to rip someone else a new one every once in awhile, even if only for sport. :xp:

Web Rider
03-09-2008, 04:52 AM
Actually, this should be a decision the parents make, because as irresponsible as parents tend to be these days, teens are even worse. However, I agree it should be tested before it sees widespread use.

It should be a decision NOT MADE AT ALL without the consent of the person it's being made about. People should NEVER, absolutely 100% NEVER have any medical procedure done to them without their consent. There are of course, exceptions when the capability to consent comes into question.

However, being a "teen" is neither a mental disorder, a physical handicap, or a disease that renders people under the age of 18 incapable of making a decision for themselves. Not everyone falling into the age grouping of 13 to 19 are the same, they are not all equal, and the mental facilities of many are far more mature than those of many others.

An interesting statistic I would be curious to find out would be if the girls who are promiscuous are really the ones getting pregnant. If my friend is any example, it was her first time having sex, and she happened to be drunk, no condom, and oops, baby.

Q
03-09-2008, 04:55 AM
@QLiveur, you try that and let us know how it goes;p Bear in mind that nerves...don't heal very well, to put it mildly.
You do know that I was being sarcastic, don't you? ;)

Still, neither proposition that I put forth was any more ridiculous than the topic of this thread. I can't help but think that life would be far simpler if humanity just divided like amoebae.

Maybe the Solarians had the right idea after all. :xp:

PoiuyWired
03-09-2008, 05:10 AM
You do know that I was being sarcastic, don't you? ;)

Still, neither proposition that I put forth was any more ridiculous than the topic of this thread. I can't help but think that life would be far simpler if humanity just divided like amoebae.

Maybe the Solarians had the right idea after all. :xp:

NO... you mean having a bunch of Britney running around is a good idea?

Bee Hoon
03-09-2008, 05:13 AM
Qliveur, 'twas mutual;)

But genetic variation is gooood.

Totenkopf
03-09-2008, 02:50 PM
^Shhh, don't tell that to the Royal family (or most of WV). :D

Arcesious
03-09-2008, 04:14 PM
People under 18/21 don't have very strong rights, under the law. For example:

Limited freedom of speech: When A teacher in school tells you to be quiet, you have to be quiet, because you're under 18. If you're not, he/she can give you a detention or a pink slip.
No drinking under 21.
No unsupervised driving under 16.
You have to take out the trash and do your chores your parents tell you to, or else you'll get grounded.
Children are often less punished than adults for major crimes, such as if a child commits murder or soemthing, in the trial they get their lawyer/attorney usually goes for the insanity plea, do to the fact that children are considered to naturally not be mentally sane at their age.
Etc, etc...

Basically under the law, children/teens have very limited rights. They are subject to the adults' authority, as the majority of kids/teens in their age group is considered to be mentally unstable and irrational. This is somewhat scientifically true too. Children's and teens' brains are developign during their age, children are naturally insane without proper discipline and teaching due to their not fully developed brains, and teens often are insane and irrational from hormones. As adults, most adults are rational, as their brains are fully developed, which gives them more complex thinking capability. This is not true to everyone however, but it is to the majority of humanity.

Inyri
03-09-2008, 04:27 PM
What are you talking about? You're talking about 'fluffy' rights. You know, optional, additional right. Saying that people under 21 can't drink doesn't mean you should remove their right to decide what happens to their body.

Seriously. What do you actually know about the law, and which parts are you making up?

Emperor Devon
03-09-2008, 06:22 PM
What on earth is all this?

Limited freedom of speech: When A teacher in school tells you to be quiet, you have to be quiet, because you're under 18.

Teachers reserve the right to expel students from their class regardless of the age in question. How on earth do you think college professors keep their classrooms in order? By asking 'be quiet' with a please at the end?

No unsupervised driving under 16.

Letting children drive before their motor skills are fully developed is laughable.

You have to take out the trash and do your chores your parents tell you to, or else you'll get grounded.

That's not a law, that's the social contract in action on a small level. If you'd rather not give up some of your time to help your parents out, there's no reason to expect them to give something similar up. (The money spent feeding and clothing you.)

Children are often less punished than adults for major crimes, such as if a child commits murder or soemthing, in the trial they get their lawyer/attorney usually goes for the insanity plea, do to the fact that children are considered to naturally not be mentally sane at their age.

No, it's because they aren't yet cognitively developed to the point they can distinct between right and wrong. As that fact applies to the majority of them, it's logically inconsistent of you to refer to a common state of mind as a deviating one.

Further, there's enough blanket in that statement to warm Nepal for a year. Have you read anything about the juvenile justice system? Their rights and punishments vary greatly depending on their age (I think the general categories are 0-7, 8-15 and 16+), and there are the gods know how many minor laws in regards to specific ages.

teens often are insane

See above statement on logical inconsistency. If they are all 'insane', as you put it, from unavoidable factors that come with their age, it's no longer insanity. You cannot refer to a normal state of mind as an abnormal one.

most adults are rational

Aha.

Ahahaha.

Ahahahaha.

No.

Cognitively developed, for the most part yes. Rational? Hell no.

Seriously. What do you actually know about the law, and which parts are you making up?

QFE. I fail to see the relevance of any of this to state-sponsored sterilization. (Such a decision should be the parents' at the absolute most.)

Corinthian
03-09-2008, 06:32 PM
Why, Web Rider? We do lots of things without asking for the person most affected's consent. Like, for example, abortion. And you can hem and haw about how they may or may not have the mental faculties to not want to die, but the fact remains that you're taking a living creature's life without it's consent. This isn't so bad, you're just denying a stupid move, not preforming a contract hit on a baby.

Arcesious
03-09-2008, 06:56 PM
Jeez. I was actually expecting a good reaction to the post I just made. But you have to go and tear it apart, assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about because I didn't describe it in more complex terms. The point I was trying to make is that teens are subject to whatever adults decide. I know how the Juvenile Justice System works, and as I mentioned, with children, the insanity plea is often used for trying to win trials on children committing crimes. The reason you must have taken my post the complete opposite way of my intentions was probably because I didn't refer to the limitedness of childs' minds as cognitively undeveloped, which was because I had not heard of that term until now, but as I attempted to describe, it means the same thing. Certain things I mentioned were not laws, sorry for not making that clear; but my whole point is that children and teens are subject to the decision and command of the adults, even if it seems morally wrong. I have decided to change my position in this debate, as you said, it should at most be the parent's decision whether or not to sterilize their child, either that or not doing it at all, as doing this won't solve the problem, and can bring up even more problems. I also revoke my statement that 'the majority of adults are rational'. Also, when I said 'no unsupervised driving under 16', that meant that it's important that there is adult training the teenager how to drive before they get their license at 16, but of course, no driving at all before 15! You took that one way too literally. (This was mostly directed at Emporer Devon)

Ctrl Alt Del
03-09-2008, 07:22 PM
Jeez. I was actually expecting a good reaction to the post I just made. But you have to go and tear it apart, assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about because I didn't describe it in more complex terms.

Doy you now? I'm sure you're quite the attorney yourself. Plus, we're talking about the british laws here.

I have decided to change my position in this debate, as you said, it should at most be the parent's decision whether or not to sterilize their child, either that or not doing it at all, as doing this won't solve the problem, and can bring up even more problems.
Let's suppose, for a moment, that this sterilization techniques applies for men as well. And let's assume you're male and under 18 (Which I believe, is right according to other of your posts).

Would it be fine if your parents, for your sake of course, decided to sterilize you for life without your consent?

Arcesious
03-09-2008, 07:34 PM
Oh... I must have forgotten that. British laws, not U.S laws... My bad. Yeah I don't know jack about british laws, so I guess you're right. Your arguement has swayed me. I agree with you, this sterlilization thing is a bad idea.

Ctrl Alt Del
03-09-2008, 07:37 PM
Oh... I must have forgotten that. British laws, not U.S laws... My bad. Yeah I don't know jack about british laws, so I guess you're right. Your arguement has swayed me. I agree with you, this sterlilization thing is a bad idea.
There's hope for you yet, then. :D

Emperor Devon
03-09-2008, 09:18 PM
Jeez. I was actually expecting a good reaction to the post I just made.

Lulz.

But you have to go and tear it apart, assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about because I didn't describe it in more complex terms.

The complexity of the terms you use to describe your suppositions is irrelevant. They are wrong, regardless of the terminology involved.

The point I was trying to make is that teens are subject to whatever adults decide.

They are subject to what their country's government, their schools and their family decide, not simply what 'adults' do.

But I can understand what you're trying to say. For point of reference it's extraordinarily common knowledge (even amongst a population as uninformed as ours), and only makes it look like you're treating the people in this thread as children.

I know how the Juvenile Justice System works,

It's not capitalized.

and as I mentioned, with children, the insanity plea is often used

No, the plea used is that as minors they are unable to differentiate between right and wrong. A plea of insanity does make the same claim, but the name should give you the knock-off that it's meant for people who usually are able to see a difference between the two.

The reason you must have taken my post the complete opposite way of my intentions was probably because I didn't refer to the limitedness of childs' minds as cognitively undeveloped,

No, it's because you're making erroneous statements which you continue to pass off as fact.

I had not heard of that term until now, but as I attempted to describe, it means the same thing.

The terminology used is irrelevant as long as the meaning is the same.

my whole point is that children and teens are subject to the decision and command of the adults,

See above reply on common knowledge.

even if it seems morally wrong.

At what instance is this?

I have decided to change my position in this debate, as you said, it should at most be the parent's decision whether or not to sterilize their child,

Well, at least you're open-minded about the topic.

Also, when I said 'no unsupervised driving under 16', that meant that it's important that there is adult training the teenager how to drive

There is no direct correlation between those two statements.

You took that one way too literally.

Is there a way I should view the content of your posts other than by the exact statements made in them?

Arcesious
03-09-2008, 09:23 PM
I see your point.

Web Rider
03-10-2008, 12:24 PM
Why, Web Rider? We do lots of things without asking for the person most affected's consent. Like, for example, abortion. And you can hem and haw about how they may or may not have the mental faculties to not want to die, but the fact remains that you're taking a living creature's life without it's consent. This isn't so bad, you're just denying a stupid move, not preforming a contract hit on a baby.

mhmm, mhmmm, yeah...mhmmm, oh...wait, what were you saying? I was actually staying on topic, and anything that would derail from that point just goes in one ear and out the other.

We kill far smarter things than fetuses all the time. It's a little hard for me to hear you defend a fetus while you eat that burger.

while we're still off topic, do quote me if you're going to respond to me a page later.

even if it seems morally wrong
Actually, no. Children are not subject to morally wrong, or seemingly morally wrong decisions of adults. This is why children cannot be locked up in a closet without the parents getting in trouble. This is why it's not legal to molest kids or beat them.

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 03:54 PM
Cows aren't human, thus it's not homocide, for one thing. Also, I bet my fetus will do better than your cow on an internet IQ test. Goo is the answer to at least one question usually. Moo is almost never the answer to any of the questions.

True_Avery
03-10-2008, 05:45 PM
Cows aren't human, thus it's not homocide, for one thing. Also, I bet my fetus will do better than your cow on an internet IQ test. Goo is the answer to at least one question usually. Moo is almost never the answer to any of the questions.
Since when has intelligence justified whether one life is more important than another? Plants and many animals may not be able to do math, but I happen to like the fact they recycle the air and keep a natural cycle going when we aren't killing them. Animals feel pain, they can feel emotion. Your fetus's capability of that is debatable, and even that depends entirely on opinion and gestation period.

And no, Goo is not an answer to this question.

Anyway, why is this even being talked about in this thread? I thought this was about sterilization.

Arcesious
03-10-2008, 06:10 PM
I have a feeling a point made about sentient potential of human fetuses if they are allowed to develope and become complete human beings from an old abortion debate thread is going to be made...

Det. Bart Lasiter
03-10-2008, 06:23 PM
Anyway, why is this even being talked about in this thread? I thought this was about sterilization.Changing the subject when you have a weak argument has been a tactic of XPERT DEBATERS since forever Avery.

Arcesious
03-10-2008, 06:35 PM
So, in summary, what Ctrl_Alt_Del's 'how would you feel if this was forced on you' argument seems to completely answer this thread's topic. Doing this sterlization against another person's will is wrong.

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 06:48 PM
Meh. Who cares what's right and wrong anyway? Morality being relative is all the rage these days.

Arcesious
03-10-2008, 07:01 PM
I care, as do many other people.

Det. Bart Lasiter
03-10-2008, 07:34 PM
Meh. Who cares what's right and wrong anyway? Morality being relative is all the rage these days.It's not just about morality (which I could give a damn about) though. It's about basic human rights and the government trying to deny them. If the government denies one right, what's to stop them from denying another? It's a bit of a selfish reason, but a reason nevertheless.

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 07:48 PM
Basic Human Rights are based around morality. For example, it was not considered immoral to keep slaves in the 16th Century, but we would consider it a violation of basic human rights. Morality and Human Rights go hand in hand, and with moral relativism, you can march it in any way you want! Why do humans deserve rights anyway?

Arcesious
03-10-2008, 07:51 PM
Some do not desrve rights, like mass-murderers, but many others do. We are sentient beings, and frankly what you're implying is that we shouldn't have rights, which is a just plain stupid thing to do, after all we've achieved.

Web Rider
03-10-2008, 07:52 PM
Why do humans deserve rights anyway?
A good question, why DO you deserve rights?

Arcesious
03-10-2008, 08:01 PM
I really have no idea why I deserve rights now that I think about it, but saying so isn't going to change anything. I sure don't want to lose my rights, which is what Corinthian is implying we do... Taking way our rights won't make the sterlization idea any more 'just'.

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 08:10 PM
I don't deserve rights. Very few people have actually earned the rights that they demand they are owed. Without a sacrifice of blood, no one would ever have any real rights. It's really rather ironic - Our higher learning and such, the things that bring us furthest from our primal nature, is protected by that same primal nature that we try to deny.

These teenagers, what exactly do they contribute to society beyond a strain on Britain's magnificent economy, unwanted children who are either aborted or shuttled off to foster care, or just 'cared' for by their child mother? From what I know of teenagers, and that's a reasonable amount, I'd say jack squat. I mean, the day that Britain desperately needs a battalion of horny teenagers to squeeze out an army of squalling infants, these will be the first in line to join up, no doubt, But I'd say the last thing Britain or anyone else needs is more unwanted children - it's not like we haven't already slaughtered enough babies to fill up Auschwitz. A few times over. We've probably had enough baby blood flowing down sinks to paint every door in the nation red. I wonder if that would have been effective at Passover?

Det. Bart Lasiter
03-10-2008, 08:18 PM
Basic Human Rights are based around morality. For example, it was not considered immoral to keep slaves in the 16th Century, but we would consider it a violation of basic human rights. Morality and Human Rights go hand in hand, and with moral relativism, you can march it in any way you want! Why do humans deserve rights anyway?Would you prefer it if you had no rights? I think most people can agree we should have at least a few rights that shouldn't have to be earned. Rather than morality, I think this consensus is reached because of selfishness. I also think that morality is bull**** and that all people decide things based on their own self-interest and not the morals they claim to have.

Arcesious
03-10-2008, 08:27 PM
Many people do, Jmac, but not all. Morality is in no way BS. Without morality there woudl be no people who care about anyone. Okay, lets take away morality for awhile.
Without morality black-skinned people would still be slaves.
You see an old lady crossing the street, carrying some groceries. Since you don't want to be moral at all, you don't help her, and she has to suffer from her arthritis trying to carry those groceries.
You are tryign to make a treaty with a country you really hate. since you have no morality, you just argue with them and cuss at them and they declare war on you.
Without morality many laws would not exist and many horrible crimes would not be punished.
Without morality, the governement wouldn't care about protecting it's citizens, and they wouldn't have any national security. No law enforcement people would care either. Nobody would bother to make mods for other people in games. No one would have done anything about rescuing Hurricaine Katrina victims. No doctors would treat your diseases and make medicines. Farmers would keep their crops for themselves. There would be no orphanages or foster homes either. Your parents would leave you out on the streets to rot. There would be no holidays, no Christmas. The world would have dictators like Hitler ruling it, making your life miserable. Don't give this crap that morality is BS. Without morality, humanity would never have gotten this far.
And there's oh-so-many other different ways that the world would be worse without morality.

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 09:02 PM
Read my above post, Jmac. Also, if you don't believe in an objective morality, how can you believe in an objective system of human rights?

DeadYorick
03-10-2008, 09:09 PM
Morality is important to our every day society. Since it influences our actions. All of our actions are influenced on what we perceive of right and wrong. We wouldn't be human if we couldn't project our mortality

Totenkopf
03-10-2008, 09:47 PM
Morality, of the absolute or even relative kind, is no more than a system of rules about what we should and should not do. The problem with relative morality has always been that if you say all codes are equal, you have shot yourself in the foot with relation to make statements about what is wrong or right. It may seem wrong to you, but who's asking you anyway, especially if your way clashes with the other guy's. In a relativistic world, it is ultimately the code of the most powerful that wins out over the competing codes in deciding what goes on in society. You can think or feel what you want, but it won't matter to anyone else but you. Sort of like anarchy being diplaced by some form of order. We have rights (or not) either based on what we've decided we should get or what some third party has granted us (in the case of religion for instance). Regardless of the system in place, it's the nature of our rights that will always be in question. So, how does one go about defining these rights in the first place (either system still requires people to come to a decision or revelation as to what is and is not a right)? Under what conditions can these rights be proscribed or even expanded? If man/govt decides what those "rights" are, they can take them away with virtual impunity, rendering them little more than priveleges. So, if Britain says that teenage girls must be sterilized between 12-17 (or some other arbitrary range), then they aren't violating anyone's rights. If you believe that our rights come from somewhere else, you'll see it differently.

Det. Bart Lasiter
03-10-2008, 10:21 PM
Without morality black-skinned people would still be slaves.The Civil War is similar to the war in Iraq in that large corporations benefited financially by rebuilding southern cities - which were completely destroyed by the North's policy of burning everything to the ground.

You see an old lady crossing the street, carrying some groceries. Since you don't want to be moral at all, you don't help her, and she has to suffer from her arthritis trying to carry those groceries.Honestly, how often does that happen? And the real reason behind such actions is that some people gain a feeling of satisfaction from making others happy.

You are tryign to make a treaty with a country you really hate. since you have no morality, you just argue with them and cuss at them and they declare war on you.Uh, no. Why would you piss them off and go to war (other than the reason I gave for the Civil War)?

Without morality many laws would not exist and many horrible crimes would not be punished.Once again, no. Laws are in the best interest of many due to the deterrent effect punishment has on potential offenders.

Without morality, the governement wouldn't care about protecting it's citizens, and they wouldn't have any national security.The government is allowed to keep its power because citizens allow it to. If its citizens received nothing in return, why would they agree to follow the government's rules?

And there's oh-so-many other different ways that the world would be worse without morality.Not really. Many parts of the world are no better than they were when they were ungoverned and no one was expected to behave "morally". The only difference is that they can rape and pillage more efficiently because of new technologies.

No law enforcement people would care either.They get paid to care in case you didn't know.

Nobody would bother to make mods for other people in games.Some people like to do that stuff. For example, I like to write code.

No one would have done anything about rescuing Hurricaine Katrina victims.Not the greatest example, FYI.

No doctors would treat your diseases and make medicines.Doctors get paid too AFAIK.

Farmers would keep their crops for themselves.#define REASON $$$

There would be no orphanages or foster homes either.What? You want even more homeless people on the streets? Sorry, but I say "I don't have any money on me" enough already.

Your parents would leave you out on the streets to rot. Parents who treat their children properly most likely wanted to have kids. Parents who didn't want to have kids usually treat them like ****. Child abuse laws.

There would be no holidays, no Christmas.YES THERE WOULDN'T BE HOLIDAYS WHERE PEOPLE GET **** AND HAVE PARTIES.

The world would have dictators like Hitler ruling it, making your life miserable.YES PEOPLE WOULD JUST BEND OVER AND TAKE IT FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER.

And in my opinion, "moral" actions are not equivalent to being nice. I'm not cynical enough to believe that there is no goodness in the world, I'm just saying the motivation behind people being nice to one another isn't some abstract idea supposedly handed down to us by some douchebag deity thousands of years ago.


Read my above post, Jmac. Also, if you don't believe in an objective morality, how can you believe in an objective system of human rights?If you want to count selfishness as a moral, fine.

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 10:50 PM
We didn't have to free the slaves to win the Civil War, Jmac. In fact, we might have been better off not freeing the slaves, strategically.

You mean a virtue. And, no. Selfishness is immoral. But without an objective system of morality, seflishness can get sorted into the good, bad, ugly, middle, up, down, left, right, between, or behind areas.

Det. Bart Lasiter
03-10-2008, 11:01 PM
We didn't have to free the slaves to win the Civil War, Jmac. In fact, we might have been better off not freeing the slaves, strategically.Yeah, but no one would support a war unless there was a reason, and the secession of the South was a reason the public could get behind. And we didn't exactly free the slaves. For years after the Civil War they were forced to work for next to nothing, as were poor whites in the South. So really, the government freed them on paper, but effectively kept them enslaved and in the same motion, enslaved poor whites as well.

You can't play chess without pawns.


You mean a virtue. And, no. Selfishness is immoral. But without an objective system of morality, seflishness can get sorted into the good, bad, ugly, middle, up, down, left, right, between, or behind areas.Fantastic. I count it as an instinct. And as I've said before, I believe morality is bull****. It's just something society likes to say exists because we like to dupe ourselves into thinking that we're a superior species.

Arcesious
03-10-2008, 11:27 PM
Wow. Wow. And wow...


The Civil War is similar to the war in Iraq in that large corporations benefited financially by rebuilding southern cities - which were completely destroyed by the North's policy of burning everything to the ground.


Yes, but it was morally wrong to enslave black people to do the work against their will.


Honestly, how often does that happen? And the real reason behind such actions is that some people gain a feeling of satisfaction from making others happy.


Quite a lot, actually, if you attribute what I said as happening in different ways and in other situations where it would be morally right to help a person. So you are telling me it's a bad thing to help someone, because it makes you feel good; that it's a bad thing to feel good about helpign someone? I think not.


Uh, no. Why would you piss them off and go to war (other than the reason I gave for the Civil War)?
You would piss them off because you have no morals. Say, for example, a country of black people are who you're negotiating with. They want you to stop enslaving their people. You say "no way! 'F word' you, you 'N word', because you have no morality. And they declare war on you.


Once again, no. Laws are in the best interest of many due to the deterrent effect punishment has on potential offenders.

The best interest? No one has any morality in your proposition. So that means no women's rights would never had been made, and no black rights, in fact, no rights for anyone, just survival of the fittest, as no one cares at all. The 'leaders' wouldn't make laws because they would want to commit crimes such as rape and murder themselves, because they have no morality.


The government is allowed to keep its power because citizens allow it to. If its citizens received nothing in return, why would they agree to follow the government's rules?


'Survival of the fittest'. The leaders would be the 'fittest' in a non-moral situation. The citizens would have no choice.

Not really. Many parts of the world are no better than they were when they were ungoverned and no one was expected to behave "morally". The only difference is that they can rape and pillage more efficiently because of new technologies.

Oh really? The United States seems a lot nicer after Martin Luther King stepped in, and after the Soviet Union was reformed. Not to mention countless other reforms that made the world better, due to people who were moral and just, even if it's still really bad.


They get paid to care in case you didn't know.


Since there are no morals, I'm guessign the 'law' enforcement would be paid to capture people to torture for fun.


Some people like to do that stuff. For example, I like to write code.

Yes, they do, but they would keep it only for themselves to enjoy.


Not the greatest example, FYI.


Oh really? But it still gets the point accross, no matter how good of an example it was.


Doctors get paid too AFAIK.

Do you really think anyone would even care to pay the doctors, since there's no morality, the people with money would keep it for themselves in most situations. They'd probably just force doctors to work.


#define REASON $$$

The farmers wouldn't get paid at all for their crops, remember, no morality. They'd just have their crops stolen. That's one reason why they'd keep the crops for themselves.


YES THERE WOULDN'T BE HOLIDAYS WHERE PEOPLE GET **** AND HAVE PARTIES.

Getting a little mad there, huh? Glad to see you admitted that I was right about that though.


YES PEOPLE WOULD JUST BEND OVER AND TAKE IT FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER.

And in my opinion, "moral" actions are not equivalent to being nice. I'm not cynical enough to believe that there is no goodness in the world, I'm just saying the motivation behind people being nice to one another isn't some abstract idea supposedly handed down to us by some douchebag deity thousands of years ago.

Uh-huh... Nice rant there...

If you want to count selfishness as a moral, fine.

Selfishness? Selfishness? You call helping other people selfishness? Okay, what about the people who donate all of their money and time to helping the poor? It's selfish because helping people makes them feel good? Have fun trying to get that opinion accross as fact in this debate...


Yeah, but no one would support a war unless there was a reason, and the secession of the South was a reason the public could get behind. And we didn't exactly free the slaves. For years after the Civil War they were forced to work for next to nothing, as were poor whites in the South. So really, the government freed them on paper, but effectively kept them enslaved and in the same motion, enslaved poor whites as well.

You can't play chess without pawns.


Then lets be moral and do something about it.


Fantastic. I count it as an instinct. And as I've said before, I believe morality is bull****. It's just something society likes to say exists because we like to dupe ourselves into thinking that we're a superior species.

You believe. No proof whatsoever. We're not 'duping ourselves' into thinking we're a superior species. You're just trying to say you and all humanity are stupid, which is untrue. how about the geniuses and great people of the human race? They're not superior? And morality does exist? Without it humanity would have completely obliterated itself with fuedalism long ago.

DeadYorick
03-10-2008, 11:29 PM
Okay everyone your straying off topic. Can you go back to the current topic of Sterilization? If you want to debate Mortality make a new thread about it

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 11:38 PM
Jmac, you can't say morality doesn't exist. You can debate as to what is and what isn't moral, but human civilization is based around morality. Now, some people have warped views of morality and the perspective of morality is definitely subjective, but that hardly means there is no such thing as morality. Quite the opposite, in fact. Now, you can deny the existence of a totally objective morality, good luck with that, but you cannot deny the existence of morality. Well, you can, but you make no sense.

Det. Bart Lasiter
03-11-2008, 12:07 AM
wordsNo. You're not reading my posts or something. You're saying lack of morality is equivalent to being a prick - it's not.

Also all of your attempts to refute what I said about personal benefits for each of the examples you gave either don't make sense or make it clear that you misunderstood what I was saying. Good job.


You believe. No proof whatsoever.Your opinion. No proof whatsoever. Thanks for playing.


As far as I can tell, your most recent post will just serve to create more comments like this:[10:28:09 PM] ***** *****: I can't believe I read that post of Arcesious'. I think half my brain just shut down...And yes, I censored out the username.



Jmac, you can't say morality doesn't exist.I just did.


You can debate as to what is and what isn't moral, but human civilization is based around morality.In your opinion. In mine it's based around people trying to **** each other for personal gain.

kbai

Web Rider
03-11-2008, 12:12 AM
I don't deserve rights. Very few people have actually earned the rights that they demand they are owed. Without a sacrifice of blood, no one would ever have any real rights. It's really rather ironic - Our higher learning and such, the things that bring us furthest from our primal nature, is protected by that same primal nature that we try to deny.

There are 3 "generations" so to speak.

The first generation learns to fight and wages the wars to establish something. The second generation learns science and math and the "sciences" in order to better defend the newly won(freedom) without shedding more blood, and to advance the new(presumably nation). The third generation gets to write the poetry and sing the songs because the generations before them are the ones who died for their rights.

The idea that everyone should have to shed blood in order to have basic rights is essentially saying "more people need to die so others can be free" which is resoundingly stupid.

DeadYorick
03-11-2008, 12:12 AM
In your opinion. In mine it's based around people trying to **** each other for personal gain.

kbai

Can you give some examples on why society is based on selfishness and suffering? This sounds more like a dystopian novel then reality

Corinthian
03-11-2008, 12:19 AM
Jmac, that's called idiot land. Human contact is based around Enlightened Self Interest, not straight up chaos. Yes, every human is in it for No. 1, and it is selfish, but that's not the point. Morality is a set of codes people live by to keep society together. Without morality, humans would essentially move in a bunch of gangs that rape and pillage as they go, then gradually disintegrate as the biggest takes charge, leads them for a while, so on and so forth. Morality is what brought humanity from cavemen to the Agriculture, and by proxy to the Modern Era.

Det. Bart Lasiter
03-11-2008, 12:33 AM
Jmac, that's called idiot land. Human contact is based around Enlightened Self Interest, not straight up chaos. Yes, every human is in it for No. 1, and it is selfish, but that's not the point. Morality is a set of codes people live by to keep society together. Without morality, humans would essentially move in a bunch of gangs that rape and pillage as they go, then gradually disintegrate as the biggest takes charge, leads them for a while, so on and so forth. Morality is what brought humanity from cavemen to the Agriculture, and by proxy to the Modern Era."Hmm I don't want to be killed."
"Hey <other person>, if you don't try to kill me I won't try to kill you."
"k"
"k"

And humans aren't the vastly superior beings you think them to be. We're just barely out of the woods - and this is proven almost every day by war, murder, rape, theft, and most of the bull**** you essentially denied the existence of.

Totenkopf
03-11-2008, 12:46 AM
^^Given that morality is basically a set of rules that guides human behavior, it does exist b/c people basically seek order from chaos. There are, naturally, individuals that seek to exploit chaos for their own selfish reasons, but that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist. Your Hobbsian outlook notwhithstanding, are you saying that society has no rules whatsoever or just that you really don't believe in concepts of good and evil?

DarthJebus05
03-11-2008, 12:53 AM
Maybe he thinks STD's are created during a sex act. Seems clear to me he has no idea how the world works, which makes me wonder why people keep replying to his posts. :lol:

Likewise, your posts never make sense to me. It's all "Look at me, I'm better than you!" and "Just because I'm friends with the admins, means I can abuse you and get away with it!".

Give it a rest, everyone. --Jae

A teenage girl gets sterilized, thus she thinks she can go and have unprotected sex with her boyfriend. It turns out that her boyfriend has a STD, and this is after they had unprotected sex.

The End.

Corinthian
03-11-2008, 12:56 AM
Not really. I'm not saying humans aren't bastards. We don't follow our own moral codes a lot of the time, as much as we cherish it. That doesn't mean morality doesn't exist. As I have said before, you can talk about relative morality as opposed to objective, but I can't think of anyone, besides you, who has ever said "Morality does not exist." It's completely wrong. Sorry, but it's a failed opinion. Denying the existence of morality is about as correct as denying the existence of the color green or claiming there was no Moon Landing - sorry, but your Opinion is invalid, and it's time to file a bug report.

DeadYorick
03-11-2008, 12:57 AM
Jebus its a little more complicated then that. Plus I don't think it is very smart or nice to bash someone. Especially if they know more about a subject then you do.

Det. Bart Lasiter
03-11-2008, 01:01 AM
sorry, but your Opinion is invalidOkay then. Good argument.

Totenkopf
03-11-2008, 01:05 AM
I think DJ's point is probably covered somewhere above. If you remove the risk of pregnancy, you remove one of the reasons that people are/try to be more careful in the pursuit of carnal pleasure. Most forms of contraception aren't foolproof, and younger people can be even more irresponsible than older ones (though often not by much). It is plausible that if a younger person starts experimenting with sex and finds it liberating they may become more active (especially if she doesn't have to worry about pregnancy) and increase the chances of contracting an std. Now, not saying that sterilizing teens is going to result in a huge upswing in veneral diseases reported/contracted, but it is a potential concern.

DarthJebus05
03-11-2008, 01:22 AM
Jebus its a little more complicated then that. Plus I don't think it is very smart or nice to bash someone. Especially if they know more about a subject then you do.

Sorry, I don't know as much as her because... because... , I can't think of a reason.

I think DJ's point is probably covered somewhere above. If you remove the risk of pregnancy, you remove one of the reasons that people are/try to be more careful in the pursuit of carnal pleasure. Most forms of contraception aren't foolproof, and younger people can be even more irresponsible than older ones (though often not by much). It is plausible that if a younger person starts experimenting with sex and finds it liberating they way become more active (especially if she doesn't have to worry about pregnancy) and increase the chances of contracting an std. Now, not saying that sterilizing teens is going to result in a huge upswing in veneral diseases reported/contracted, but it is a potential concern.

I was the first one to bring it up, then got tired of repeating myself.

Rogue Nine
03-11-2008, 01:27 AM
Likewise, your posts never make sense to me. It's all "Look at me, I'm better than you!" and "Just because I'm friends with the admins, means I can abuse you and get away with it!".
I am not aware of any place where Inyri has expressed such an opinion. I also, as an admin, do not appreciate the insinuations you make with your statement.

A teenage girl gets sterilized, thus she thinks she can go and have unprotected sex with her boyfriend. It turns out that her boyfriend has a STD, and this is after they had unprotected sex.

The End.
You assume that all girls will think this way. You assume that the people administering the sterilizations will not impress upon the girls that it is a contraceptive measure, not an anti-STD measure. Either way, you assume either monumental stupidity or gross negligence on someone's part.

DarthJebus05
03-11-2008, 01:39 AM
You assume that all girls will think this way. You assume that the people administering the sterilizations will not impress upon the girls that it is a contraceptive measure, not an anti-STD measure. Either way, you assume either monumental stupidity or gross negligence on someone's part.

Thats where you're wrong. I never said all girls are like that, never ever ever ever ever. I can keep going? I already said I freaken know this isn't a anti-std measure, it will cause more STD's, since some girls will relax and not use condoms, and accidentally get a STD from their boyfriend.

:EDIT: Forgot to mention, I said 'admins', not Rouge Nine. And how did you know I was talking about this forum?

Rogue Nine
03-11-2008, 01:47 AM
Thats where you're wrong. I never said all girls are like that, never ever ever ever ever. I can keep going? I already said I freaken know this isn't a anti-std measure, it will cause more STD's, since some girls will relax and not use condoms, and accidentally get a STD from their boyfriend.
From your original post (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2433214&postcount=51) on the point:

They would want to have unprotected sex, since they can't get pregnant, and what if their boyfriend has a STD? Thats what I'm trying to say.
'They'? That sounds a lot like a blanket statement for 'all girls' to me. :rolleyes:

And I like that your assumption is based on the fact that boys are automatic carriers of STDs AND irresponsible enough not to let their partners know AND stupid enough not to know that sterilization is not a contraceptive measure. Way to stereotype the gender.

:EDIT: Forgot to mention, I said 'admins', not Rouge Nine. And how did you know I was talking about this forum?
My name is Rogue Nine. I'm pretty sure the other admins would also not appreciate the sentiments you insinuate. And since we're posting on this forum and you are referring to Inyri's statements here, then I can only assume that you mean this forum.

Jae Onasi
03-11-2008, 01:56 AM
I've noticed a lot more expletives being used in the past week or two. Keep the language clean, people.

DarthJebus05
03-11-2008, 02:05 AM
From your original post (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2433214&postcount=51) on the point:


'They'? That sounds a lot like a blanket statement for 'all girls' to me. :rolleyes:

And I like that your assumption is based on the fact that boys are automatic carriers of STDs AND irresponsible enough not to let their partners know AND stupid enough not to know that sterilization is not a contraceptive measure. Way to stereotype the gender.


My name is Rogue Nine. I'm pretty sure the other admins would also not appreciate the sentiments you insinuate. And since we're posting on this forum and you are referring to Inyri's statements here, then I can only assume that you mean this forum.

Great, I must be the stupidest person in the world. Every guy has STD's, damnit. I wonder where babies come from then?

Seriously, 'they' meaning idiotic girls who think being sterilized will stop STD's.

They would want to have unprotected sex, since they can't get pregnant, and what if their boyfriend has a STD? Thats what I'm trying to say.

I gave the bit where I don't say all guys carries STD's a bold font.

Rogue Nine
03-11-2008, 02:13 AM
Great, I must be the stupidest person in the world. Every guy has STD's, damnit. I wonder where babies come from then?

I gave the bit where I don't say all guys carries STD's a bold font.
I made my position based on this statement:
I already said I freaken know this isn't a anti-std measure, it will cause more STD's, since some girls will relax and not use condoms, and accidentally get a STD from their boyfriend.
Your supposition is that those girls who choose to 'relax' and not use condoms will automatically get an STD from their boyfriend.

Seriously, 'they' meaning idiotic girls who think being sterilized will stop STD's.
Well, then you should have said so instead of being unhelpfully vague about a point you were trying to make that is central to your argument.

And you have not responded on my points about the male's responsibility in the matter.

DarthJebus05
03-11-2008, 02:17 AM
I needed to repost this:

and what if their boyfriend[ has a STD?

What if? I never said every guy has a STD.

and what if their boyfriend has a STD?

And I have no idea why you would think I think every girl would want to have unprotected sex. Why would someone think that?

Rogue Nine
03-11-2008, 02:23 AM
It is not my fault you cannot communicate a clear message, instead relying on vague, confusing and overly generalized blanket statements and anecdotal evidence to back up your position.

And this entire argument is irrelevant to the topic at hand anyway, so it is done.

Jae Onasi
03-11-2008, 02:24 AM
*Jae views this thread and lifts an eyebrow at the smoke erupting*

Please find a way to not snipe at each other *, or I'll be happy to close the thread so you all won't be able to. That is all.


Edit by d3: * and keep the discussion on topic

Arcesious
03-11-2008, 06:13 PM
Sorry about that. We'll continue the debate/discussion about Morals in another thread.

Salzella
03-12-2008, 03:54 PM
More generally, it's a paranoid joke which no-one of middling intelligence or above reads.
an admirable summary, if i may say so.