All males 14+ should consider a vasectomy.

[xTheShadex]

Originally posted by: Modeps
you're an idiot.

*laff*

 

[Ilmater]

This thread is ignorant.




CLEARLY we should neuter all of our 13-year-old males.

 

[yukichigai]

I think a vasectomy at a young age, below 18 if I remember, is dangerous in terms of sexual development. Certain things don't form properly, stuff gets "shut down" because it isn't apparantly going to be put to use, etc. It's just not safe.

That and it wouldn't stop STDs, and would if anything encourage their spread.

 

[Bootprint]

Starting to sound like Eugenics of the early 1900s.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: nitrus
i dont want children @ the moment and my wife agreed it was a good idea.

Pvssy-whipped. :thumbsdown:

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Requiring a license to have kids would definitely make the country a better place. If you can't afford a $5000 operation, how can you afford to raise a kid for 18 years?

 

[Bootprint]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Requiring a license to have kids would definitely make the country a better place. If you can't afford a $5000 operation, how can you afford to raise a kid for 18 years?

So now you've spent 5 grand, that you could've spend to raise the kid and still no idea if the reversal will work.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I wouldn't worry about most of the 14 Y/O males here. Most of them aren't gettin' any anyway. :laugh:

 

[DotheDamnTHing]

Originally posted by: Kai920

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: nitrus
think about it no teenage pregnancy. no abortions. no "accidents". planned parenthood to the extreme. this is assuming that a vasectomy is 100% safe and 100% reversable.

Jawohl, mein Führer!

lol :beer:

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I wouldn't worry about most of the 14 Y/O males here. Most of them aren't gettin' any anyway. :laugh:

Except from their hottie 23-year-old teacher.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

So now you've spent 5 grand, that you could've spend to raise the kid and still no idea if the reversal will work.

Well, the reversal process would have to be nearly foolproof before anything like this could be implemented. $5000 is a drop in the bucket compared to raising a kid for 18 years. It gets you a semesters tuition at your state university.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: nitrus

Originally posted by: Modeps
you're an idiot.

cmon guys constructive critisism. i know its OUT there, thats why i want thought and comments. name calling doesnt prove your point. i didnt even vote yes, i voted maybe.

You want constructive criticism? How about this: Reproduction is a basic human right. We live in a country founded on the rights of the individual. Your idea is totally alien to that concept.

First how is it a right?

Secondly if it is a "right" we are not talking about people who are excercising a right. How many people choose to become pregnant before 18? Although we are not at the point where this would be necassary for population control what if we were? What would be your stance on that "right" then? I'm not talking about population control as in the amount of people exceeds the amount of space available but in the burden on recources (both physical and economic). I've seen people criticize China but even you will feel the effects as China industrializes.

Teen pregnancies cost our government over 7 billion dollars a year. This is only the teen pregnancies and does not account for the people who are of age yet not financially stable enough or otherwise responsible enough to have children. Is this a big enough burden for such drastic action? Probably not at this point. The idea is not that bad in the theoretical sense provided it were 100% safe and reversible. We don't let 14 year olds drive and most of you would consider driving a right. We wait until an age society has deemed appropriate for them to drive and then test their ability to do so. The same can be said for purchasing firearms, alcohol, etc. Why would we not do the same for something that requires much more responsibility? Why shouldn't the rules for having children be the same as those for adopting where you have to prove you are worthy?

 

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: nitrus

Originally posted by: Modeps
you're an idiot.

cmon guys constructive critisism. i know its OUT there, thats why i want thought and comments. name calling doesnt prove your point. i didnt even vote yes, i voted maybe.

You want constructive criticism? How about this: Reproduction is a basic human right. We live in a country founded on the rights of the individual. Your idea is totally alien to that concept.

First how is it a right?

Secondly if it is a "right" we are not talking about people who are excercising a right. How many people choose to become pregnant before 18? Although we are not at the point where this would be necassary for population control what if we were? What would be your stance on that "right" then? I'm not talking about population control as in the amount of people exceeds the amount of space available but in the burden on recources (both physical and economic). I've seen people criticize China but even you will feel the effects as China industrializes.

Teen pregnancies cost our government over 7 billion dollars a year. This is only the teen pregnancies and does not account for the people who are of age yet not financially stable enough or otherwise responsible enough to have children. Is this a big enough burden for such drastic action? Probably not at this point. The idea is not that bad in the theoretical sense provided it were 100% safe and reversible. We don't let 14 year olds drive and most of you would consider driving a right. We wait until an age society has deemed appropriate for them to drive and then test their ability to do so. The same can be said for purchasing firearms, alcohol, etc. Why would we not do the same for something that requires much more responsibility? Why shouldn't the rules for having children be the same as those for adopting where you have to prove you are worthy?

Typically in this country you don't have any rights until you are 18.

Your rant is scary and reeks of 1984 mentality.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

You first.

- M4H

 

[fredtam]

Sampson, how so? You don't think there will come a time when individual "rights" will have to be tread upon in order to preserve a nation or the world?

 

They will be tread upon because it was set up and run improperly in the first place.
There is no preserving this way of life, it is doomed to failure.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: nitrus

Originally posted by: Modeps
you're an idiot.

cmon guys constructive critisism. i know its OUT there, thats why i want thought and comments. name calling doesnt prove your point. i didnt even vote yes, i voted maybe.

You want constructive criticism? How about this: Reproduction is a basic human right. We live in a country founded on the rights of the individual. Your idea is totally alien to that concept.

First how is it a right?

Secondly if it is a "right" we are not talking about people who are excercising a right. How many people choose to become pregnant before 18? Although we are not at the point where this would be necassary for population control what if we were? What would be your stance on that "right" then? I'm not talking about population control as in the amount of people exceeds the amount of space available but in the burden on recources (both physical and economic). I've seen people criticize China but even you will feel the effects as China industrializes.

Teen pregnancies cost our government over 7 billion dollars a year. This is only the teen pregnancies and does not account for the people who are of age yet not financially stable enough or otherwise responsible enough to have children. Is this a big enough burden for such drastic action? Probably not at this point. The idea is not that bad in the theoretical sense provided it were 100% safe and reversible. We don't let 14 year olds drive and most of you would consider driving a right. We wait until an age society has deemed appropriate for them to drive and then test their ability to do so. The same can be said for purchasing firearms, alcohol, etc. Why would we not do the same for something that requires much more responsibility? Why shouldn't the rules for having children be the same as those for adopting where you have to prove you are worthy?

I can't wait until the government gets to review and approve licenses for children. Who sets the criteria upon which a couple is judged worthy? There would have to be another government bureaucracy set up to regulate this which would surely cost untold billions.

The discussion is moot anyway since it is not 100% reversible. It becomes a debate over how much power the state should have over it's citizens.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Who sets the criteria upon which a couple is judged worthy? There would have to be another government bureaucracy set up to regulate this which would surely cost untold billions.

Income. Make $30000 to have 1 kid, $40000 2, etc etc. Of course it would depend on the cost of living in the area.

It's not simply a matter of rights, someday we are going to need to limit the planet's population.

 

[dquan97]

what about just issuing castity belts

 

[shiner]

Man....I spread a LOT of seed between the ages of 15-30....still spread it but only to my wife....anyway....I never knocked anyone up, got a disease, etc....and trust me....I wasn't always smart about wrapping the ol one eyed trouser snake....so....in conclusion........ummm....what was I saying? Oh well........anyway....boys....you only get one chance at being a sex crazed teenager with the ability to hold an erection for weeks....SO USE IT!!!!!!!!

 

[classy]

This is so stupid. Why did you even post such a retarded idea.

 

[RobCur]

Originally posted by: nitrus
hey i had one done. i dont want children @ the moment and my wife agreed it was a good idea.

that is your right, may you 2 rest in peace after you both passed away for all eternity :thumbsup:

 

[thomsbrain]

IF they were 100% safe and IF they were 100% reversible, they might be a good idea.

but neither is the case.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: RobCur

Originally posted by: nitrus
hey i had one done. i dont want children @ the moment and my wife agreed it was a good idea.

that is your right, may you 2 rest in peace after you both passed away for all eternity :thumbsup:

lol

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: classy
This is so stupid. Why did you even post such a retarded idea.

Classy, don't you mean it is racist. I would have thought that would be your response. You know the poor african americans being held back by the white man would not be able to attain the required status to get theirs reversed.