• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The solution to abortion

I do have a problem with a abortion, and I am as liberal as you can possibly get when it comes to a woman's right to control her body. No one wants to snuff out life. My solution, though extreme, would be akin to a vaccine. And would be perfectly reversible at any stage of life.

Imagine how many societal problems that would solve.
 
I do have a problem with a abortion, and I am as liberal as you can possibly get when it comes to a woman's right to control her body. No one wants to snuff out life. My solution, though extreme, would be akin to a vaccine. And would be perfectly reversible at any stage of life.

Except then you are giving control over reproduction to whomever controls the supply of the sterilization-reversal drugs. If you don't think that power will be abused...
 
I do have a problem with a abortion, and I am as liberal as you can possibly get when it comes to a woman's right to control her body. No one wants to snuff out life. My solution, though extreme, would be akin to a vaccine. And would be perfectly reversible at any stage of life.

Imagine how many societal problems that would solve.

Do you believe what you write? If planned to be reversible, vacetomies nearly always are. So, have you gotten one?

You will find pro-life men vehemently oppose any plans to make it so men can not accidentally impregnant a woman. I've run this question past them on the forum before. NOW, if you plan ONLY sterilized women? Maybe, not sure where they stand on that. They can't force women to have babies they don't want if women don't get pregnant.

Pro-life goes back to religion and initially it was - until not long ago - that abortion AND contraceptives were both illegal. Pro-life would never embrace your plan because the core backbone of pro-life is religions - and the fight contraceptives every step of the way. The hardcore opposition would come from pro-life, not pro-choice.
 
Do you believe what you write? If planned to be reversible, vacetomies nearly always are. So, have you gotten one?

I'm probably not the appropriate person to ask, because I am celibate and do not enter into physical relationships.
 
Except then you are giving control over reproduction to whomever controls the supply of the sterilization-reversal drugs. If you don't think that power will be abused...

This is a good point, except that I do not subscribe to the notion that the government is malevolent.
 
The solution to abortion is to sterilize all newborns (both genders). Upon reaching the age of consent, and when the person is ready to have a child, the procedure is reversed. You don't need to have a license or anything, you just go to your doctor and take a pill or get an injection. This would eliminate the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies, and keep necessary abortions to a minimum.

I can see no real flaws in this solution, provided it could work.
This is sick.
 
Not hearing a lot of support for my mandatory sterilization program. :shock:

What about voluntary sterilization upon reaching puberty?
 
Not that two wrongs make a right, but involuntary genital mutilation occurs every day in America. This would be far less intrusive.

I would much rather deal with those issues and never consider this one.

The issue that you brought up earlier I very much support banning, and just like there is no justification to removing the foreskin, there is no justification in sterilizing people.
 
Last edited:
Though I would, of course, take exception to the sterilization of all newborns, and not because it's without their consent as parents circumcise their kids all the time without their kids' consent, but because "sterilization" just sounds yucky .. and besides, it's unnecessary then.

I have to ask if it is really unnecessary. The youngest girl known to have been pregnant gave birth at 5 years, 7 months, and 21 days. She was raped (not a surprise). See: Who is the youngest girl on record to get pregnant
 
This is a good point, except that I do not subscribe to the notion that the government is malevolent.

I take it then that you are not a student of history.

Not hearing a lot of support for my mandatory sterilization program. :shock:

Imagine that.

What about voluntary sterilization upon reaching puberty?

This is already de facto the case-- hormonal birth control implants and intra-uterine devices are already available for adolescent women. There is no such medical equivalent for young men, or men of any age.

And before you argue that such methods do not constitute "sterilization", I would point out that there is no known sterilization process with a near 100% successful reversal rate, and such procedures cost thousands of dollars regardless of whether they are successful or not. This is not a viable solution.
 
I take it then that you are not a student of history.



Imagine that.



This is already de facto the case-- hormonal birth control implants and intra-uterine devices are already available for adolescent women. There is no such medical equivalent for young men, or men of any age.

And before you argue that such methods do not constitute "sterilization", I would point out that there is no known sterilization process with a near 100% successful reversal rate, and such procedures cost thousands of dollars regardless of whether they are successful or not. This is not a viable solution.

The male birth control pill is in testing stages and appears works.

Would you favor the right of a parent to require their minor aged child to take/use chemical birth control upon puberty if it not harmful to the youth?
 
I take it then that you are not a student of history.

I am very much a student of history.

This is already de facto the case-- hormonal birth control implants and intra-uterine devices are already available for adolescent women.

Those are a bit extreme, don't you think?
 
The male birth control pill is in testing stages and appears works.

Would you favor the right of a parent to require their minor aged child to take/use chemical birth control upon puberty if it not harmful to the youth?

If it's not harmful? Sure. Problem is, the stuff isn't always safe. Would you favor the right of a minor child to demand medical attention for side effects of medication their parents require them to take?

Those are a bit extreme, don't you think?

Compared to vasectomy and tubal ligation? No, I don't think they're extreme at all.
 
The male birth control pill is in testing stages and appears works.

Are you talking about that blue gel that is injected into the man? The stuff that apparently lasts for ten years and just all of sudden loses effectiveness? There is no way men will line up for that.

Btw, I have no idea why people keep saying its not surgery when they cut the guy open and pull a part of him out of the hole to shove a needle in it. How in the hell is that not surgery?
 
Last edited:
So we sterilize all children for that odd case where a five year old gets pregnant? What happens when we can't reverse it later? Do we just say sorry?

I'm actually not advocating for this OP, only wanted to point out that there are pregnancies that young and it is disgraceful that such sick things occur. I agree with you on this problem of reversibility and think the OP is totally unrealistic. We don't disagree on everything.
 
Are you talking about that blue gel that is injected into the man? The stuff that apparently lasts for ten years and just all of sudden loses effectiveness? There is no way men will line up for that.

Btw, I have no idea why people keep saying its not surgery when they cut the guy open and pull a part of him out of the hole to shove a needle in it. How in the hell is that not surgery?

I'm guessing, but I think if the incision is really small and the procedure can be done in a doctor's office and not a hospital or a clinic with facilities for what is called "surgery" and you can go home immediately, they may classify it as an "invasive procedure" or "invasive outpatient procedure" instead. They have a special set of criteria to distinguish "surgery" from other "invasive procedures."
 
To which I pretty much agreed in my initial post in this thread.

But, by the time puberty is reached, one should take them like vitamins if one doesn't want to be a part of an undesired pregnancy or the unjustified killing of a living prenatal human.

It's not unjustified unless you think a person doesn't have a right to their own body--unless you think a person hooked up to another, to supply blood/nutrients to that other person (which a fetus could hardly even be considered until later in the pregnancy), doesn't have the right to stop doing that. It may be unpleasant to think about, but that's why the position is called pro-choice and not pro-abortion.
 
Are you talking about that blue gel that is injected into the man? The stuff that apparently lasts for ten years and just all of sudden loses effectiveness? There is no way men will line up for that.

Btw, I have no idea why people keep saying its not surgery when they cut the guy open and pull a part of him out of the hole to shove a needle in it. How in the hell is that not surgery?

So? You have no problem demanding a woman go thru 9 months of unwanted pregnancy, all the health risks of that, plus labor. So what are you complaining about?

Oh, yeah, that's right. You only make demands on women - with men exempt of course.
 
So? You have no problem demanding a woman go thru 9 months of unwanted pregnancy, all the health risks of that, plus labor. So what are you complaining about?

Oh, yeah, that's right. You only make demands on women - with men exempt of course.

Natural process vs. Blue gel that stays in one place in your body for ten years killing everything that crosses it's path.

Hmm..

Btw, since when I have demanded anything of women? I don't think you understand my stance at all.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing, but I think if the incision is really small and the procedure can be done in a doctor's office and not a hospital or a clinic with facilities for what is called "surgery" and you can go home immediately, they may classify it as an "invasive procedure" or "invasive outpatient procedure" instead. They have a special set of criteria to distinguish "surgery" from other "invasive procedures."

If you ask me anytime they cut me open it's surgery.
 
If you ask me anytime they cut me open it's surgery.

That is not how medical definitions work - the lay person doesn't get to decide. A tiny incision is not "cutting one open" in medicine. I had an "invasive procedure," so I know this. But you still have to give consent to such a procedure or you can sue them for doing it.
 
That is not how medical definitions work - the lay person doesn't get to decide. A tiny incision is not "cutting one open" in medicine. I had an "invasive procedure," so I know this. But you still have to give consent to such a procedure or you can sue them for doing it.

I realize that, but I personally find it foolish to decide on a different term simply due to the amount of "invasiveness". It is surgery regardless of how much they cut someone open and the definition doesn't care one little bit about their play with the term. Until that changes I won't change how I view it.
 
Last edited:
So we sterilize all children for that odd case where a five year old gets pregnant? What happens when we can't reverse it later? Do we just say sorry?

I have to agree with you on this issue. Mandatory sterilisation is wrong.
 
I'm guessing, but I think if the incision is really small and the procedure can be done in a doctor's office and not a hospital or a clinic with facilities for what is called "surgery" and you can go home immediately, they may classify it as an "invasive procedure" or "invasive outpatient procedure" instead. They have a special set of criteria to distinguish "surgery" from other "invasive procedures."

Anyone else see the irony in someone who wants women to be forced to gestate and give birth but who bristles at the suggestion of a man having to undergo a procedure?
 
Back
Top Bottom