[ Rules ] [ ot / g / m ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Discord ]

/ot/ - off-topic

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Youtube
Password (For post deletion)

File: 1477002968042.jpg (74.54 KB, 513x682, r9k.jpg)

No. 113123

Hey farmers what do you think about this?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/723323/Sexual-partner-fertility-disability-World-Health-Organisation-IVF

What will happen if ALL men somehow obtain a legally recognized "right to sex"? Does sex work become legal? Does rape?

Discuss.

No. 113125

>What will happen if ALL men somehow obtain a legally recognized "right to sex"? Does sex work become legal? Does rape?

>Under the new rules, heterosexual single men and women and gay men and women who want to have children will now be given the same priority as a couple seeking IVF because of medical fertility problems.


It's a right to fertility (or pseudo-fertility) via a baby produced by in-vitro fertilization, not a right to sex.

No. 113126

>Under the new rules, heterosexual single men and women and gay men and women who want to have children will now be given the same priority as a couple seeking IVF because of medical fertility problems.
>
>WHO says the change will give every individual “the right to reproduce”.

It sounds like this just gives gay couples and single people access to IVF/fertility treatment. Nothing like "right to sex."

I bet this article was an emotional rollercoaster for incels.

No. 113127

>>113125
Okay, so what will happen if everyone has the right to a child?

No. 113128

>>113127
It just means they have a right to fertility treatment.

No. 113129

>>113128
What kind of fertility treatment will help someone find a partner??

No. 113130

>>113129
Where did the WHO say they would help people find a partner?

No. 113131

>>113129
The WHO's recommendations don't mention helping them find a partner. Just helping them have a child if they can't find a partner.

>>113127
Then we all die due to severe overpopulation, eventually.

No. 113132

>>113129
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/single-men-will-get-the-right-to-start-a-family-under-new-defini/

>Legal experts said the new definition, which will be sent out to every health minister next year, may force a law change, allowing the introduction of commercial surrogacy.


>Under the new terms, heterosexual single men and women, and gay men and women who want to have children would be given the same priority as couples seeking IVF because of medical fertility problems.

>
>Dr David Adamson, one of the authors of the new standards, said: “The definition of infertility is now written in such a way that it includes the rights of all individuals to have a family, and that includes single men, single women, gay men, gay women.
>
>"It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual's got a right to reproduce whether or not they have a partner. It's a big change.
>
>"It fundamentally alters who should be included in this group and who should have access to healthcare. It sets an international legal standard. Countries are bound by it."

No. 113133

>>113132
Okay but… are there really enough donor eggs for all the incel men? How are none of you troubled by this?

No. 113134

>>113123

Is it documented somewhere there won't be enough? Women can get paid to sell their eggs. With an incentive like that, I'm sure there will be plenty.

No. 113135

>>113133
Even if there aren't, how are you troubled by it? You literally think the UN is going to legalize rape?

No. 113136

lol i'm so tired of these faggots from /r9k/

No. 113137

>>113133
incel men don't want eggs/kids though. they just wanna fuck

No. 113146

The article said "WHO says the change will give every individual “the right to reproduce'"
WAT.
God, I hate the present era so much.
Do they not realize that this contributes to overpopulation? Or the potential to pass on genes that are not conducive to natural conception and child birth?

No. 113149

>>113146
My thoughts exactly anon. I may not spout it everyday because I don't want to draw ire from the kinds of povert and uneducated folk who would take offense at truth, but there are plenty of people who prove that just because they have the gonads doesn't mean they've proven they have a right to reproduction. If you can't take care of a child without government or organizational help then I'd say that's a pretty damn good indicator of not being fit to reproduce, for example.

No. 113152

File: 1477016907051.jpg (18.07 KB, 620x388, Josef-Fritzl_1757107b.jpg)

>>113137
actually i've seen threads on /r9k/ multiple times where people discuss how they would raise their daughter and it's always really creepy and sounds like they're just fantasizing about raising a little girl to be their wife lol

I mean I guess this guy was able to do it without that crazy new proposed law right? So why should women worry!

No. 113153

>>113146
Say goodbye to natural selection, forever.

No. 113159

>>113153
bring back eugenics

No. 113161

Seriously?
There's so many abused and neglected kids already we need more restrictions on procreating not saying everyone has a right to it jfc.

Not everyone should have that right.
Current drug users or alcoholics, abusers, and selfish shitty people in general have no right to offspring if they're determined not to drastically improve themselves.

We need birth control in the goddamn public water.

No. 113171

I was really hoping this would mean I can cash in on more neetbux

No. 113173

>>113149
>proven they have a right

You don't know what a right is, do you?

If you make reproducing a privilege, you're just going to end up with the same shit as when abortion was illegal. People will do it anyway, just in less safe ways, resulting in no change (do you really think people will just change their mind about wanting kids because the government says no?). Imagine the situation in China under their one child restriction, except way, way worse.

And if you're going to forcibly sterilise people, then you'd have to remove a significant amount of other rights that would essentially give the government precedent to have complete power over every single aspect of you, and to force surgery of any sort on you.

Just because you say something's truth and should be the case because you're obviously right and anyone who disagrees is dumb doesn't make it so.

No. 113176

>>113173
>If you make reproducing a privilege
Is it not a commonly accepted notion that reproducing is meant to result in you keeping your offspring to raise yourself? Isn't that the point of this article?
True that almost anybody with functioning uterus and balls can make a baby, but you need to meet certain requirements in most first world nations to keep and raise children.
You have to provide them clean food, water, and shelter. You need to provide them healthcare. You can't be a drug addict or exhibit neglect, abuse, or risky behaviors. You need to provide them some form of education. When they get older you have to satisfy their more materialistic needs. If you do a crime or get thrown in jail your kids become dependents of relatives or wards of the state.

You say it's not a privilege, when in fact if you violate these laws your kids can be taken away from you by government entities if you fail. We only grant parenthood to responsible, clean, and well-balanced individuals. When you grant special rights (parenthood) to a group of people but don't make it a right for other groups who you deem unfit, that's called a privilege. And the privilege of parenthood can be taken away from you.

I didn't talk about sterilizing people or enforcing abortions, but if someone can't be a parent on their own merit then why should I empathize when they purposefully seek to abuse safety net systems in our society? Meanwhile, other people who are either actively taking birth control, aborting, or abstaining from sex if they're not yet prepared, are offered zero help while the idiocracy is welcomed to breed erroneously.

I'm not saying I have the solution to this issue, but don't act like I'm Hitler for pointing out inadequacies in people.

No. 113180

>>113176
>Is it not a commonly accepted notion that reproducing is meant to result in you keeping your offspring to raise yourself? Isn't that the point of this article?

Of course.

>You have to provide them clean food, water, and shelter. You need to provide them healthcare.


Yes, but you can't go "Nah you can't do those things" based on an assumption. There's plenty of poor people who look after their kids fine.

>You can't be a drug addict or exhibit neglect, abuse, or risky behaviors.


You actually can, just can't neglect or abuse your kid. Plenty of drug addicts have kids.

>You need to provide them some form of education.


Government does.

>When they get older you have to satisfy their more materialistic needs


Do you really think that you can have your kids taken off you if you don't get them the newest iPhone?

>You say it's not a privilege, when in fact if you violate these laws your kids can be taken away from you by government entities if you fail. We only grant parenthood to responsible, clean, and well-balanced individuals. When you grant special rights (parenthood) to a group of people but don't make it a right for other groups who you deem unfit, that's called a privilege. And the privilege of parenthood can be taken away from you.


Are you arguing that taking someones kids away because they've demonstrated they aren't capable of looking after their kids, and are refusing to improve despite many warnings is the same as pre-emptively telling certain people based on arbitrary criteria that they cannot reproduce?

And as I said, how do you plan on enforcing this?

>When you grant special rights (parenthood) to a group of people but don't make it a right for other groups who you deem unfit, that's called a privilege. And the privilege of parenthood can be taken away from you.



You aren't granted anything, a right is something you inherently have in society. No particular body gives it to you, it's universal and inalienable.

You can have your ability to look after your kid taken away if you prove you're not capable of keeping them safe, but you can't have your reproductive rights taken away.

You're arguing off a completely false premise.

And you don't have to empathize with people who abuse the system, of course, they're a problem in todays society. But that being said, there's not any way to solve the problem that doesn't just cause way more serious ones.

As I asked before, how could you possible enforce taking away peoples reproductive rights?

No. 113186

>>113180
>"Nah you can't do those things" based on an assumption
But you do realize that kids are taken away by CPS and put into foster or state care quite often on the basis of proof.

Here's an anecdote for what I think is acceptable and what isn't for a low-income person to reproduce:
>low-income person plans a pregnancy and has a general budget of how to live, prepares for child, and only relies on social welfare if unforeseen circumstances occur
Perfectly agreeable.
>low-income person either keeps an unplanned pregnancy or purposefully becomes pregnant knowing they will be granted more aid and living assistance so they will not have to work while neglecting many of their children's needs
Not acceptable. This is more than flawed, it's criminally negligent. Do you really think people like this or drug addicts have god-given right to kids given these circumstances?

Unless you are low-income, government will not provide you and your kid with things. You say, for example, gov't provides education but only in the sense it presents the teacher, the books, and the system by which your kid learns. But there are many other education-related expenses: unless you're low-income your kid's transportation, extraneous school materials, school clothes, extracurricular activities, and lunch money is not provided for. Homeschooling is also often not provided solely on government funds.
But hey don't worry about those iphones and laptops–US government gives those to kids too. Y'know, those materialistic things they could live without.

You're asking me how we should go about not legitimizing poor reproductive choices.
Well, to name one, I don't think requiring a certain income budget and family plan are necessarily "arbitrary" standards. These are things that can be measured and provided.
Again, I'm not arguing for sterilization or enforcing abortion.
But even so, reproductive rights also include the right to not be pregnant. Government doesn't pay for the majority of birth control. Abortion has restrictions and limitations, and government doesn't pay for it. Someone who misses the deadline for abortion is often forced to birth. Other countries enforce abortion bans even when the mother's life is in danger or under circumstance of rape.

So explain why if reproductive rights are so undeniable, that governments go about denying and seemingly discourage the choice to not reproduce? It seems government has effective legislation for that, often requiring tons of paperwork and for people to have health insurance minimally to purchase effective forms of bc or undergo legal abortions. Makes you want to bless clinics like Planned Parenthood where people of all incomes are welcomed to get help.

Reproduction and the ability to parent need to go hand in hand or else we'll further encourage overpopulation and co-dependency on government institutions in order to flesh out a living.
Look, I don't think you're stupid or anything. I think it's good to have whistleblowers so we don't become the next China. But it seems we're at an impasse here.

No. 113189

>>113186
>But you do realize that kids are taken away by CPS and put into foster or state care quite often on the basis of proof.

Yep, I do. After they're born.

>Not acceptable. This is more than flawed, it's criminally negligent. Do you really think people like this or drug addicts have god-given right to kids given these circumstances?


Yes. Absolutely. That is how rights work, you can't take them away from people because you don't like them.

>You say, for example, gov't provides education but only in the sense it presents the teacher, the books, and the system by which your kid learns.


Yes, as in the school provides the education, as a government funded organisation.

>unless you're low-income your kid's transportation, extraneous school materials, school clothes, extracurricular activities, and lunch money is not provided for.


What country do you live in where kids don't have bus passes? Or schools can't provide things like pens or clothes for kids who can't afford it? The reason it's not provided for people who aren't low income is because they can afford it.

And you do realise that you pointing out how the government provides things for kids who can't otherwise get them supports my claim that poor people shouldn't have any difficulty providing for a child?

>Well, to name one, I don't think requiring a certain income budget and family plan are necessarily "arbitrary" standards. These are things that can be measured and provided.


How much then? How do you pick an income that isn't simply an arbitrary number? People of all incomes can provide for children.

>Again, I'm not arguing for sterilization or enforcing abortion.


Then how do you propose we enforce this?

>But even so, reproductive rights also include the right to not be pregnant.


Do they? Can you source this?

>Someone who misses the deadline for abortion is often forced to birth


Because after that it's deemed to be solidly a recognisable human being, as well as it getting much more risky medically the later in pregnancy you go.

>Other countries enforce abortion bans even when the mother's life is in danger or under circumstance of rape.


And other countries execute drug dealers, or execute people simply for having the wrong beliefs. We're talking about the US, I assume.

>So explain why if reproductive rights are so undeniable, that governments go about denying and seemingly discourage the choice to not reproduce?


What? The government seeming to you like they encourage people to reproduce doesn't violate your reproductive rights at all.

>It seems government has effective legislation for that, often requiring tons of paperwork and for people to have health insurance minimally to purchase effective forms of bc or undergo legal abortions.


Going to your local supermarket and picking up some condoms for like $10 for a pack of 20 requires health insurance and lengthy paperwork?

OR seeing a doctor, and getting a script for a contraceptive pill which is covered by all forms of public insurance I know of is those things?

Abortion requires more paperwork because it's a surgical procedure, and there are standards that have to be met.

>Reproduction and the ability to parent need to go hand in hand or else we'll further encourage overpopulation and co-dependency on government institutions in order to flesh out a living.


I think it's more important to teach people how to parent, and to have more efficient CPD and encouraging people to look after foster children or adopt than trying to stop them having kids.

Like, you referred to China (And I appreciate you not taking the normal stance people who argue for this sort of stuff do with the other party automatically being an idiot), and even their laws didn't stop people doing it overall, it just increased the amount of unregistered births and caused huge issues with people killing their children.

I think prohibition being such a monumental failure should show you that restricting the ability to have kids wouldn't work out. Like, we couldn't even stop people drinking, just created a black market. Do you think we can stop people from feeling one of the most basic biological urges and carrying out on it?

>But it seems we're at an impasse here.


I think we're at an impasse because there simply is no solution. I agree, shitty parents are an issue. And you seem to agree that stuff like forcing abortion or sterilisation is just going to lead to way more issues than it solves.

So I think there's nowhere to go with that path of thinking, because we've both come to the same conclusion that there's really just not much to be done as far as legislating, even if we come at it from different perspectives.

No. 113190

Single people having babies seems like a really bad step for society.

No offense to single parent kids, I know those parents has probably worked stupid hard to raise their kids but it's been proven time and time again that having TWO parents (whatever sex they are) is more stable than a single parent household. You need two strong influences in a child's life for development.

It just seems like a recipe for more anti-social behaviour tbh.

No. 113192

>>113189
>you can't take them away from people because you don't like them
But we can!
Evidently many people don't like women who choose to exercise their reproductive rights to abortion, and so government restricts them all the time.
If you can't pay for an abortion yourself and insurance doesn't cover it, you don't get one in the US. And the only saving grace you'd have is being fortunate enough to live within commuting distance to a free clinic who might provide 1st trimester chemical abortion. If you bypass the Hyde Amendment in some states and go to a public assistance office to file for an emergency abortion, you have to prove via proof of unemployment, months of low wage pay stubs, or health reasons as to why you need the abortion and can't front it yourself→this process btw often requires multiple visits to fill out paperwork and further burdens women.
If a woman misses the window of non-viability (often determined by individual states) and the fetus is determined viable at screening, she's basically told "tough shit" and must birth, and if she doesn't want the child to put it up for adoption. And that cutoff is more than arbitrary since it's measured by sonograms and the discretion of an obgyn who may or may not be biased.

Same with effective birth control like the shot, the implant, the IUD, and yes even sterilization (which is more of an ageism thing). People who are not low income whose insurances don't cover these things often pay out of pocket. If they complain, they're told to settle for less expensive birth control methods like barriers which have a high failure rate, and pills that are known to have a plethora of negative side effects for women.

^
And none of that is right because abortion and birth control prevent tax burdens and discourage welfare whereas unchecked birthing does the opposite and costs more money in the long run. Yet the common argument against abortion and gov't funded bc by conservatives is that it will be too "costly." Do you see the cognitive dissonance there?
What's more of a financial burden on society?
A woman having an abortion once or a child in a welfare home who needs to be fed, housed, and clothed for at least until the age of 18. C'mon.

And don't tell me that restricting abortion, not funding bc, and denying young women the option to sterilization isn't the government blatantly infringing on reproductive rights. The mantra to fight against the defunding of Planned Parenthood, for example, literally says "Fight for reproductive rights."


>Abortion requires more paperwork because it's a surgical procedure, and there are standards that have to be met.

Poor, poor reasoning.
More people die during childbirth than abortion, and childbirth often does end in a surgical procedure called a c-section. No medical restriction is put on women to determine and discourage their ability to birth.
Oh, and not to mention that they're bringing a life into the world that will need resources for their entire lifespan.

>What country do you live in where kids don't have bus passes?

The US. If some cities have them that's nice but rules vary by county and state, and if a bus doesn't charter to your residence then you're SOL anyway.
>supports my claim that poor people shouldn't have any difficulty providing for a child?
Well you'd be surprised. Second of all, my side has always been that it's wrong to use social welfare as a safety net throughout the child's upbringing. Because otherwise, no, without government help many low-income parents couldn't provide by themselves. And this certainly isn't justification for them to have more just because government will foot the bill via taxes.

Why is it that people get a more "cushioned" incentive to reproduce knowing that their lack of income qualifies them for social welfare programs, while others are forced to work harder because they arbitrarily don't qualify even if the welfare would also benefit their standard of living significantly?

>I think it's more important to teach people how to parent, and to have more efficient CPD and encouraging people to look after foster children or adopt than trying to stop them having kids.

While I agree with the first half it seems that all of that should be encouraged before someone has a child.

No. 113195

>>113192
>Evidently many people don't like women who choose to exercise their reproductive rights to abortion, and so government restricts them all the time.

But in those countries, they do not have that right. They are not bound to the same legal system as us. Abortion isn't a right. Some people argue it should be considered one, but it isn't legally considered a right yet.

But the argument of "You have to go places to get it" is pretty poor. Even if it was a right to be able to access it, if you choose not to exercise your right to it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>If a woman misses the window of non-viability (often determined by individual states) and the fetus is determined viable at screening, she's basically told "tough shit" and must birth, and if she doesn't want the child to put it up for adoption. And that cutoff is more than arbitrary since it's measured by sonograms and the discretion of an obgyn who may or may not be biased.


I really don't see how you can argue that it's arbitrary because it's measure by a sonogram. In all places I know that have abortion, first trimester is when it's allowed, when it's still a simple procedure.

>People who are not low income whose insurances don't cover these things often pay out of pocket.


Doesn't public insurance cover this? I really don't see how you could be in a situation where you can't afford something that couch surfing teenage girls can afford to get.

And as I said, condoms are like 10 bucks for 20 or so, and highly effective. Go buy some. Hell, you can get them for free all over the place, there's dispensers and places you can walk in and ask for some if you can't afford to get any.

>And don't tell me that restricting abortion, not funding bc, and denying young women the option to sterilization isn't the government blatantly infringing on reproductive rights.


Where does this happen?

Do you think we should have completely unrestricted abortions, not subject to the same surgical standards as other procedures? Should you be able to abort a day before your due date? BC is covered by public health insurance as far as I know, and it's cheap as even without it compared to other medications. And even ignoring medications, as I said, buy some condoms. Make the guy wear them. Easy.

And sterilisation isn't a reproductive right, it's an optional surgery, which doctors can refuse for any reason they like, at any age. It's also not just women, men are denied vasectomies at young ages too, because they aren't always reversable, and it's a decision young people generally aren't mature enough to make. You simple can't say you never ever want kids at 20. And even if you could, use contraceptives.

>The mantra to fight against the defunding of Planned Parenthood, for example, literally says "Fight for reproductive rights."


Just because some politicians want to infringe upon rights don't mean they aren't there. Planned parenthood does exist, and it is funded.

Do you think that extremist religious sorts wanting to kill everyone who disagrees with them somehow violates our right to freedom of religion? Or is it simply them expressing their right to free speech?

The whole fight for PP being kept is that it's based off reproductive rights. If those rights didn't exist or couldn't be argued to apply to it, odds are it would have lost funding, or a significant amount of it's funding at least.

>More people die during childbirth than abortion, and childbirth often does end in a surgical procedure called a c-section. No medical restriction is put on women to determine and discourage their ability to birth.


Anon, you realise that childbirth takes a fucking heap of paperwork to organise, right? And they're costly as fuck? You don't just pop down to the hospital for your free delivery whenever you like.

You can of course(not free), but that's because childbirth isn't something you can put off, and a hospital does have a responsibility to care for you if you need it. An abortion (as in one you chose to have for personal reasons, not medical or anything) isn't, it's an optional surgery. You're not going to die if you don't get it. Making it affordable is important, but it's not on the same level as life preserving surgery.

The reason no medical restriction is put on women to determine and discourage their ability to birth is because you can't fucking stop it. If they're pregnant, short of enforcing abortion, they will give birth, which as you said, is risky, and hospitals have a responsibility of care.

>The US. If some cities have them that's nice but rules vary by county and state, and if a bus doesn't charter to your residence then you're SOL anyway.


Well shit, I'm not from the US, but that's pretty ridiculous, every kid has a bus pass where I am, the bus company can't refuse.

>Second of all, my side has always been that it's wrong to use social welfare as a safety net throughout the child's upbringing.


You do realise that's what social welfare is, right? A safety net to stop people from falling through the cracks and ending up in situations where they can't afford basic things.

>Why is it that people get a more "cushioned" incentive to reproduce knowing that their lack of income qualifies them for social welfare programs, while others are forced to work harder because they arbitrarily don't qualify even if the welfare would also benefit their standard of living significantly?


Because the second individuals do not need the welfare. If they no longer were able to provide for the child, they could apply for all of the same things as the poorer family, there's no rule that says you can't apply for it. And if you were going through financial difficulties, schools do help by providing uniforms or stationery.

>While I agree with the first half it seems that all of that should be encouraged before someone has a child.


It should, I agree. I just think it's pointless and dangerous to try to force people to not have kids.

No. 113196

>>113195
I also want to add, right to freedom of religion is a good example to talk about funding of bc.

The government does not have to make sure that all religions are easily accessible wherever you are, and to fund a church in every city for you to have the freedom to religion.

The same as they don't have to fund every single medication for you to have a right to healthcare (don't remember the exact wording). The same as they don't need to give everyone heavily subsidised bc for you to have your reproductive rights.

They simply need to treat it the same as other medications, and not unfairly reduce your ability to access it relative to other similar things. Which they don't.

You make an appointment, probably have some blood tests, get a script and then take it to the pharmacy. As long as you don't have any other health concerns that could impact it, it's as simple as that.

No. 113201

>>113195
>They are not bound to the same legal system as us.
The World Health Organization just said people have undeniable reproductive rights. As well as the choice to be pregnant, that also includes the option to not be.

>Where does restrictions happen?

In the United States, not far away places like Pakistan where we traditionally think of oppression, challenges to Roe v. Wade (the constitutional right to abortion) by states and individuals are filed every year. Roe v. Wade has been upheld for more than 50 years. In the United States you DO have a right to abortion. Women in the United States literally have a right to an abortion, on the condition that it is balanced against state interest. That one stipulation, "state interests" has fueled many court cases directly attacking abortion, placing restrictions, or adding deterrents. However they often are ruled unconstitutional. So states got creative! Not too long ago Texas passed a law that defunded many free clinics and Planned Parenthood with reasoning that they were not at "hospital standard" to host abortions even though many of them only administered bc/checkups, or abortions via pill. It caused a shutdown of facilities.The intention was to place burden on women seeking abortions, making them commute long-distance to hospitals where procedures were more costly. It was also harder for women of all incomes to obtain effective birth control on a regular basis.
As a result more low-income babies were produced in the state during this time frame. It's been documented by medical journals:
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-planned-parenthood-texas-births-20160203-story.html
It's a very strong argument, called "undue burden," that making clinics inaccessible via long commutes and no funding causes an unreasonable burden for women to enforce their reproductive rights that results in more pregnancies. Low-income and working class families have less time and resources to be able to commute cross-state for the multiple appointments for bc or abortion.

This is but one example of a state using legislation and manipulation to visibly impact reproductive choice. This is documented proof. Ironically, conservashits are always bitching about low-income babies sucking up the welfare, but maybe there's an advantage that I, a peasant, can't see as the state creates more government-dependent people.

>Why are measurements by sonograms arbitrary?

Because viability is weighed by gestational age, however that can only be calculated by inspection of the sonogram or else it's the woman's word against the obgyn. They are not always accurate and it's impossible to account for all variables (which is why birthdates for expectant mothers can be off big time). Fetuses can have growth spurts, developing significantly one week and barely much the next. Most abortion cutoffs are at the 24 week mark for most states.
Therefore, it would be pretty arbitrary for a woman whose fetus's actual gestational age was 23 weeks but because of a spurt or the obgyn's overestimation of size, she was actually determined to be at 24 weeks and could not get an abortion because of that. Ultrasound estimations are usually off by five days to a week. Doctor bias is also very real.

>Doesn't public insurance cover this?

Not all. Most insurances have a copay for obgyn visits. And some newer, yet most effective, bc like hormonal implant rods are not yet covered by insurance policies. If women opt for Depo Provera that means they gotta go in every three months. If they take oral pills then they should be having regular checkups to monitor weight, bodily changes, and cardiovascular functions. IUDs are hard to get because obgyns are biased to give them to women who haven't had children before (even though this has been debunked), and most insurances will only cover hormonal IUD which many people have bad reactions to as opposed to copper. Really the only kinds of birth control where they wouldn't need as many routine checkups are the implant and sterilization, but those aren't totally covered by even the best insurance policies.

Condoms are fine but they break. People use them incorrectly. Condoms to my knowledge have existed for quite a long time but have seemed to leave a stronger impact on STD transmission rates, not so much toward unplanned pregnancies. It's better to give women the birth control with the smallest rate of failure.

>Do you think we should have completely unrestricted abortions

Well nobody in their right mind is going to "abort" a human baby a day before it's due unless it's stillborn, and that's to save the birthmother from severe health consequences like sepsis or sterility. If we do that to a viable, fully formed baby we call that "infanticide" in our society and it is punishable by law. Someone should tell Trump about that, since he seemed confused at the presidential debate.
All I'm saying is if birth control, morning after pills, and early abortion were made more accessible, we wouldn't need to bean count over these kinds of cases as much because their numbers would simply decrease.

>Planned parenthood does exist, and it is funded.

Not in all states to the extent that it should be to be the most efficient.
And I'm sorry but your comparison about religion just doesn't make sense and it really has nothing to do with this issue. Denying women bc and abortion is proven to drive unplanned pregnancy and birth rates up. It's what happens when their right to choose not to birth is disabled by government.

Reproduction has no restrictions despite
1. Being more costly.
and
2. Statistically causing more complications and fatalities to women.
You also say that there's little reason for abortion if someone isn't prepared for a child but the same could be said for a low-income parent who is welfare dependent.
They could just as easily take cheap birth control by your logic, but I know for a fact it takes a lot more than that anyway. And again, some low-income parents just want the government aid regardless.

>you realise that childbirth takes a fucking heap of paperwork to organise

An interesting trend that's happening in America right now are more women choosing midwives to do home births. So actually depending on what method of birth they pick they're saving themselves tons of paperwork and bills to not go to the hospital. Not to mention people give birth to undocumented babies all the time. Women theoretically childbirth anywhere.
It makes logical sense.
On the other hand, how is someone supposed to self-administer an abortion when the pills are illegal w/o prescription and they have no tools for advanced procedures? Attempts to self-administer can lead to injury or death whereas childbirth is a natural process unless medical complications arise.

I mean what woman WANTS to experience abortion?

>You're not going to die if you don't get it.

Many women have killed themselves over being denied abortion. Women have been granted emergency abortions for the fact that they threaten to kill themselves. Pregnancies really are that devastating to some people.
Also every pregnancy delivered has a probability of a fatality that is way higher than abortion, so quite literally, having a baby can kill you.

And forcing pregnancy on the unwilling when they have a reproductive RIGHT to not be, simply isn't ethical. You can not die from lots of unethical stuff being imposed on you, but it doesn't mean it's right.

>A safety net to stop people from falling through the cracks and ending up in situations where they can't afford basic things.

Agreed, but it's not intended to be lifelong or be the backup for when someone irresponsibly and purposefully brings another child into the world solely for those benefits. Here in the States there's a major problem with people taking advantage of these programs even when they don't need it. It's a major fraud. Shouldn't the end-game of any social welfare program be to, yes, provide aid but also provide education and resources to folks so they won't return to welfare? Again just because the security is there doesn't mean it's intended to provide for decades to people who have no motivation to be independent.

>there's no rule that says you can't apply for it

Lol, I don't know what country you're from but you would be DENIED in my state for basics, like an $80/month food stamp allowance, if you make over 18k as a single person. It doesn't mean you're not poor, just not poor enough and no dependents for the state to nanny. Impossibly low bracket incomes for assistance, where you literally need to only be working part time or not seeking employment at all, is further incentive for people to have multiple children dependent on welfare. The more children you have=the more welfare you get. This is how it works in the States and very little has been done to restrict this circular system.

You could argue nobody needs welfare. Look at families in Africa with eight to ten children who survive in huts with contaminated water and mashed up roots for food. But it's no quality of life, is it? What if government programs collapsed and the security nets disappeared? What would these dependent people do? Steal from singles and responsible couples who prioritized and budgeted for their living? It's gonna turn into one scary ass world the more land and resources are taken by people, because nobody can see how it's wise to slow down reproduction.

No. 113202

>>113201
>The World Health Organization just said people have undeniable reproductive rights

The WHO is not a legal authority. They cannot ratify any legislation, they can merely advice people.

>Not too long ago Texas passed a law that defunded many free clinics and Planned Parenthood with reasoning that they were not at "hospital standard" to host abortions even though many of them only administered bc/checkups, or abortions via pill


Which, correct me if I'm wrong, was overturned by the supreme court, for this reason
>We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."

Not the best example when it wasn't legally sound.

>Because viability is weighed by gestational age, however that can only be calculated by inspection of the sonogram or else it's the woman's word against the obgyn


Which is arbitrary because?

>They are not always accurate and it's impossible to account for all variables


This is like saying that a brain cancer is arbitrary because CT scans aren't always accurate, and can't account for every variable.

Nothing is 100% accurate, that doesn't make it arbitrary.

>Therefore, it would be pretty arbitrary for a woman whose fetus's actual gestational age was 23 weeks but because of a spurt or the obgyn's overestimation of size, she was actually determined to be at 24 weeks and could not get an abortion because of that.


That's not anything that can be changed though anon, as medical standards have to be set for entire populations, you can't base it off outlying cases or possible variables. A doctor getting something wrong doesn't mean it's arbitrary, and arguing that we should make the regulations around the actual surgical procedure of abortion more lax won't do anything but increase the risk to women who need them.

>Not all. Most insurances have a copay for obgyn visits.


What reason do you have to see an obgyn for bc? Just go see your GP.

>bc like hormonal implant rods are not yet covered by insurance policies


It doesn't have to cover every possible option anon. BC is covered by insurance.

>If they take oral pills then they should be having regular checkups to monitor weight, bodily changes, and cardiovascular functions.


All of which your GP can handle. And by this you mean that they tell you to weigh yourself and come in if there's any unusual changes, and make you have a blood test before, 6 weeks after, and then a few months later.

>Really the only kinds of birth control where they wouldn't need as many routine checkups are the implant and sterilization, but those aren't totally covered by even the best insurance policies.


Sterilisation isn't covered because it's optional surgery. You don't need it, and it shouldn't be covered by insurance any more than a nose job should.

>Condoms are fine but they break. People use them incorrectly.


This is true for any form of birth control. Did you know that you acn still get someone pregnant when you've been sterilised? It's insanely rare, but happens, because sometimes the surgery isn't done entirely correctly.

If condoms are used correctly, they're at most a percent less effective than contraceptive pills. It's really not a notable difference, and the amount of people who get pregnant while both condoms and oral contraceptive pills are used is negligible.

>All I'm saying is if birth control, morning after pills, and early abortion were made more accessible, we wouldn't need to bean count over these kinds of cases as much because their numbers would simply decrease.


But they are insanely easily accessible. See your GP, or go to a clinic. At most you need to drive an hour or so to get to a clinic if there isn't one in your area.

Morning after pills I'm not sure about for the US though, in my country you just pick them up from a pharmacy, though they do cost a lot. I think it's pretty retarded to say that it should need to be covered by insurance though, if you want access to birth control, use birth control.

>And I'm sorry but your comparison about religion just doesn't make sense and it really has nothing to do with this issue. Denying women bc and abortion is proven to drive unplanned pregnancy and birth rates up


And you know what? No-one is being denied bc or abortion unless there's a solid medical reason for it.

>Not in all states to the extent that it should be to be the most efficient.


This is true for hospitals, which I'd say are just slightly more important on a larger scale.

>You also say that there's little reason for abortion if someone isn't prepared for a child but the same could be said for a low-income parent who is welfare dependent.


Did I say this? Where? I'm not quite understanding what you're referring to with this sentence, so I possible could have.

>An interesting trend that's happening in America right now are more women choosing midwives to do home births


Which still takes a lot of paperwork. Not all of the paperwork is related to the hospital itself.

>Not to mention people give birth to undocumented babies all the time. Women theoretically childbirth anywhere.


Yep, which is why I argued that restricting who can reproduce would be a negative, as it would drive this up and increase the risk.

>Attempts to self-administer can lead to injury or death whereas childbirth is a natural process unless medical complications arise.


And medical complications do arise relatively regularly. The difference is that one is something you choose though, and one is something that you can't stop happening. If you're pregnant, unless you abort, you will give birth (generally, there's always exceptions). It is important to have access to abortion, but it's dumb to act like it's anything but an optional procedure, it doesn't preserve your life at all.

>Many women have killed themselves over being denied abortion.


People have killed themselves over losing their phones anon. Not getting the abortion won't kill you. You might kill yourself, but that's not the same thing, and it's incredibly dishonest to imply it is.

>Also every pregnancy delivered has a probability of a fatality that is way higher than abortion, so quite literally, having a baby can kill you.


Didn't you say like, 5 lines ago that childbirth was a natural thing that is less risky than abortion?

>And forcing pregnancy on the unwilling when they have a reproductive RIGHT to not be, simply isn't ethical.


No-one is forcing pregnancy on anyone. Short of cases of rape, you know the risk when you have sex, and you have made a decision to do it anyway. In no way is that forcing anything on you. You also do have access to abortions, very easily.

>Agreed, but it's not intended to be lifelong or be the backup for when someone irresponsibly and purposefully brings another child into the world solely for those benefits.


Yep, generally it's not meant to be lifelong, though it is sometimes, and the disabled have a right to reproduce the same as everyone else, so I feel this isn't worth mentioning.

>Shouldn't the end-game of any social welfare program be to, yes, provide aid but also provide education and resources to folks so they won't return to welfare? Again just because the security is there doesn't mean it's intended to provide for decades to people who have no motivation to be independent.


And it is, generally. Some people abuse it, but ultimately, people will always abuse it. People will fake disabilities, and do, regularly. It's not worth compromising the system that does care for people to try to crack down on a real minority.

>The more children you have=the more welfare you get. This is how it works in the States and very little has been done to restrict this circular system.


Same here, but what could be done? The only thing we have to stop it is if they're proven to not be using that money to take care of the kids, and are using them purely for financial gain, they can be taken off them as they're not deemed to be appropriate guardians.

Is there a law like this there?

>Lol, I don't know what country you're from but you would be DENIED in my state for basics, like an $80/month food stamp allowance, if you make over 18k as a single person.


Same here. I said you can apply, not that you'd get it.

Though in my country, if you have children, the amount you need to earn to be eligible for welfare payments does increase a fair bit, though I don't know the exact figure off by heart.

>You could argue nobody needs welfare


But I'm not? I'm not sure what your point is here. Why would the government programs collapse? It feels like a hypothetical honestly, kind of like "What if all the money disappeared". Sure, it would fuck over society, we're not fully equipped to handle it, and welfare systems are vital to all of us at some point (even if it's just the right to legal representation and government funded attorneys). But it's not going to happen.

No. 113206

>>113202
>The WHO is not a legal authority.
Then why are we here debating on whether or not people have a legal right to reproduce if they're not a true authority on anything? Their word has to mean something, whether that reflects global attitudes, changing institutional structures, etc.
It's strange and I question why.
Especially when the WHO knows about destitute countries where there's no birth control, no abortion, no education, poor healthcare, no government assistance, and having children just means more mouths to feed and suffering in general.


Sadly, Texas along with 14 other states have defunded Planned Parenthood and it remains as such. The Supreme Court has yet to do anything about it. Many red states who've defunded are currently seeing an increase in unplanned pregnancy and low-income birth rates though, so maybe it will wake some people up.

>brain cancer

But I doubt if brain cancer detection was off by a week, it wouldn't cause much hinderance to you getting subsequent care. I don't think a doctor would say you missed the boat by a week and so you can't be treated at all.

A week can mean the difference between someone deciding you're eligible for abortion or you're not. If you're not eligible, that's it. Unless a medical complication arises or you go insane. I mean, it's been the case that women qualified for abortion before the 24 week line, but because they couldn't get an appointment in time they were refused. And it's quite arbitrary because most fetuses, even at 24 weeks still aren't viable, yet that's the restriction laid out in legislation so be it. Even if a fetus was found to have a horrible genetic disease at 24 weeks, the woman is still forced to jump through hoops in order to secure a late term abortion because it's technically 'viable' even though it would miscarry at a later gestation or die after birth. It's a very blurred line and it's never been greatly defined in our legal system, and the main reason is because viability definitions are hard to apply to the entire population of pregnant women because every pregnancy is different.

>Just go see your GP.

There's still copays. And again most effective birth controls are not fully funded by most insurance policies. My old insurance covered the majority of my hormonal implant ($1.5k) but I still owed $500 out of pocket and I did that with Planned Parenthood too. Pills and condoms aren't going to be the solution for everyone so it's an unfair expectation to suppose they should settle for just those two options. Pills are outright not a good choice for some. It's really hard to explain to someone who doesn't live here how much insurance policies suck. Some policies don't consider forms of bc as preventative care, and other policies stipulate that they only cover x amount of visits before you pay the copay plus 20%, for example.

>Sterilisation isn't covered because it's optional surgery. You don't need it, and it shouldn't be covered by insurance any more than a nose job should

I mean I appreciate the effort you're putting into with these comparisons, but no nose job is about to produce a booger-hominid that you'll be legally obligated to take care of until adulthood. You're comparing a reproductive procedure to a cosmetic one.

It's true that any birth control can technically still result in pregnancy, but the best one (hormonal implant) has a 1 in 2000 (this is .05%) chance of failure with typical use. It also can remain in effect between 3-10 years. Compare that to sterilization: 1 in 200 for tubal litigation and 1 in 666 for male sterilization. For perspective, the failure rate for a male condom is 1 in 5.5. It's so bad and extremely ineffective, it rivals the pull-out method that's 1 in 5.

Morning after pills used to run me $50 back in 2010/11, but then there was some kind of legislation passed where pharms could no longer not offer generic, so the cost went down to $40 at least by 2012. I haven't had a use for that pill in a long time, and I believe there might have been some legislation passed to make the price better, but that puppy wasn't covered by my insurance no way. It's probably still the case, since many have sensationalized that as the "abortion pill."

>No-one is being denied bc or abortion unless there's a solid medical reason for it

Or no money and no insurance. I mean you keep insisting condoms and pills are so widely available and super effective and so you seem to imply there's no use for abortion as a reproductive right since there's alternatives to avoid it. I mean it works in theory with perfect use and ideal circumstances. But it's just not the case. Like you said earlier, every bc method has a failure rate and condoms and pills are just really obsolete. Better than nothing, but there's greater options. And until those options are provided for it's just logic that more unplanned pregnancies and more people on welfare will not change.

>but it's dumb to act like it's anything but an optional procedure, it doesn't preserve your life at all

It can though, and who has the wizard powers to look into an alternate dimension to see someone who aborted actually carry out the pregnancy just to die during birthing? Can't happen so all we have are statistics. Fact is, many women in the US die from pregnancy complications from childbirth. 18.5 deaths for every 100,000 live births since 2013.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/01/health/maternal-mortality-rate-u-s-increasing-why/
And some reasons for these deaths? Lack of accessible and quality healthcare–being the biggest one. This is opposed to .06 deaths per 100,000 abortions. You are statistically more likely to live and avoid long-term complications by having an abortion than if you were to birth a child.
And btw I never said abortion is less risky, just that childbirth can literally be done in a field of dirt out of natural instinct whereas an abortion procedure that isn't chemical requires knowledge, tools, and skill. Nobody has a natural ability to abort by themselves. I'm sure there's a statistic for how many women died from botched self abortions back when abortion was banned, but meh, seems logical enough to me to not go digging for that one.

>People have killed themselves over losing their phones anon

All the more reason why emotionally unstable people who freak out over phones shouldn't have kids just because global entities encourage them that they have a right. Reminds me of parents who remember to bring their phones everywhere but leave their kids to slowly die in hot cars during the summer claiming they "forgot" them.

>The only thing we have to stop it is if they're proven to not be using that money to take care of the kids

It's a bit complicated because, nah, not really. For example electronic benefit cards are accepted at most fast food places, bars, and can be used to purchase food clearly not intended for the well-being of kids like packs of soda and adult instant-food. In some states an EBT card doubles as a "debit" with cash allowance on it to buy non-food or prepared meals, and that's what they use to buy things like alcohol with because running it as food stamps would be rejected. People "trade" away their electronic benefits all the time too for either cash or drugs, since most cashiers at stores aren't required by law to verify the identity on the card. Add to this the benefits of Medicaid, public housing or section 8 (drastically reduced rent properties), and gov't stipend education…well, they got plenty of money leftover to use from their part time job, or under the table jobs. All they gotta do in most states is make sure they don't earn more than $18k after taxes a year. Even better if you're disabled so you can collect disability. Or if you got fired from your job and the ex employer is obligated to pay employment. That's why it's such a stereotype for all these broke hoods and disabled tumblrinas you see online to claim they're so POOR while they tote brand new clothes and merch every week. Some even drive nice cars.
The only time the US ever really cracks down on welfare is if there's fraud. Like if someone starts a job where they're making like $25k a year but don't report it to the services while they collect food stamp benefits anyway. Saw an article from my hometown last week where some lady was collecting $800 a month in food benefits while working full time, so they arrested and prosecuted her bc she didn't report her new income that would have disqualified her.

>Why would the government programs collapse?

Because the United States is in a horrible amount of debt and crooked politicians are looking for ways to axe our savings in order to pay back a multi-trillion deficit we weren't complicit in. And maybe a recession or another military conflict might give it a good boot to warrant program cuts like it did post-Iraq and the real estate collapse.
A good example is social security: People have paid into this program on every taxable paycheck they have ever earned. It was meant to be there for when people hit retirement age and could collect back from it monthly. It worked on the principle that the longer you stayed in work, the more money you could collect. Now some politicians want to say the people who paid into it aren't actually entitled to it (bullshit), and they've already started taking their cut of money if people decide to collect early before the official retirement age. Just because they said so. In addition, gov't wants to raise the retirement age in such increments that realistically a person my age probably won't be able to retire until late 60's even if we can afford to retire. It's becoming more obvious that things like social security, shit hard working people paid into and not just take, will not be there for us when we get old.

And it should scare a lot of people if we're the generation with the most loan debt, littlest retirement savings, and a depleting fund that we legally pay into but aren't even guaranteed to get back. Amazes me how people want to add a brood of unplanned children into the mix, just to make themselves even more dependent on voting for the politicians who are going to throw them a bone.

No. 113208

File: 1477058984764.png (21.53 KB, 464x234, pregnant template.png)

This is great, as western women further become more unacceptable as wives/mothers, and the risks of marriage for men become more unacceptable, men need a cheap option to become fathers.

Currently hiring a surrogate is very expensive, only wealthy men can do it.

>>113161
>There's so many abused and neglected kids already

Those are usually because sluts accidentally have kids due to promiscuous/unsafe sex. But you don't say anything about women slutting it up do you?

The kind of people who WANT children but can't find a suitable partner (it's near impossible to find a woman 16-30 right now in the western world suitable to become a mother) are far more likely to raise children well.

No. 113209

File: 1477059291031.gif (888.96 KB, 245x219, 944d91e2-4812-4b19-9e95-34b937…)


No. 113210

>>113208
>Currently hiring a surrogate is very expensive, only wealthy men can do it.

Guess you'll just have to utilize that beaming personality, anon.

No. 113215

>>113208
>The kind of people who WANT children but can't find a suitable partner are far more likely to raise children well.
You mean the /r9k/ creeps who want to raise "qt daughterus" who they can keep all to themselves and fuck as soon as they're middle-school aged? Lmao

No. 113219

>>113208
Get out.

No. 113222

>>113208

>16-30


please don't impregnate teenagers

No. 113224

>>113209
Perfect gif.

No. 113263

>>113222
Age of consent in most of the developed world is 16.

No. 113265

>>113263

age of concent doesn't mean she'd be mentally fit to be a mother

No. 113269

>>113265
There are women in their twenties who wouldn't be fit to be a mother. Age isn't the sole determining factor for mental fitness.

No. 113305

>>113269
But if shes 16 shes not legally the child's guardian, i mean youre not even legally an adult. Her parents have to take that role ( or the guy has to? But that never seems to happen). This creates a lot of problems like with what happens whenthe mother turns 18. Its very bad to have a kid at 16 since you won't get the same benefits as someone over 18 either, but ofc that might vary from place to place.

No. 113315

>>113269

take a look at today's 16 year old girls, do you think they could even handle being a mother? No HS education, no way to support the kid completely on her own, hell… there's a good chance she doesn't even know how to cook or clean.

At least with a woman in her 20s, she probably had to fend for herself at some point in her life (unless she came from money/is a tumblr as bitch). More life experience to guide the child in the right direction too.

Sure, there's a lot of 20 somethings that shouldn't be parents, but in my opinion no one younger than 18 should ever be a parent in this day and age.

(inb4: w-well in the past teenaged girls would be parents! in the past she'd have the ability to cook, clean, take care of a home, have experience with actually caring for babies outside of helping mom out sometimes and that health projet where you take home a fake baby, and a husband who realized he'd have to support her and his children.)

No. 113318

Why is there an influx of people wanting to fuck 16-yo kids? I'm pretty sure they want to fuck 13-yo kids too but they keep it a secret because it isn't legal in most places. Even scat is better that being attracted to kids and teens.

No. 113319

>>113318
because they're convinced that women their own age ugly dirty whores… who also won't go anywhere near their penises.

No. 113480

>>113196
>I also want to add, right to freedom of religion is a good example to talk about funding of bc.
>The government does not have to make sure that all religions are easily accessible wherever you are, and to fund a church in every city for you to have the freedom to religion.
>The same as they don't have to fund every single medication for you to have a right to healthcare (don't remember the exact wording). The same as they don't need to give everyone heavily subsidised bc for you to have your reproductive rights.
>They simply need to treat it the same as other medications, and not unfairly reduce your ability to access it relative to other similar things.
Very well, said anon. You hit the nail on the head.

No. 173286

Men who find mates are often unsuitable parents, why allow men who set off the weirdo radar in most women to reproduce?
Women are the carriers and primary caregivers of children for a reason: to protect them from harm.
Harm that is usually caused by a man.
If a man cannot be decent enough to make a woman comfortable to the point of courtship he should not have the potential to raise a daughter. He should not have the potential to raise a son who will follow in his footsteps either.
Incel men do not complain about not being able to reproduce, they complain about not being able to have sex.
Men do not commonly have the ability to be nurturing.
What will happen if a man that is unable to find a sexual partner is given a daughter or son?
Would they take care of the child's needs or abuse them to fill their own sexual needs?
The majority of pedophiles are male because men confuse paternal feelings with sexual feelings.
Men can't separate sex from any interest in their lives including children.
There is a good reason for women not trusting men as sole child care providers.
You may think that my viewpoints are extreme, but go to any incel filled online community like /r9k/ or /pol/ and observe their sexually charged views on children and young girls.
The majority of incel men only want daughters which makes me think that they don't want a child but a female version of themselves that they can sexualize to their liking.
I don't believe that only incel men have these thoughts either.
Women have always been wary of men around their children as an unspoken rule, why should we give these same men the right to reproduce and raise children?

No. 173287

What a scary article. Reproduction and the ability to raise children is a privilege, not a right. It makes me uncomfortable enough that the vast majority of society still holds the archaic belief that to be completely successful in life you need to breed and settle down in a marriage. Because of that notion we have people who ostracize others who choose not to have children. Right now there is a lot of priority on maintaining families that shouldn't have bred because they can't afford to maintain a child/children, giving drug addicts free drugs and helping foreigners integrate into countries. If you're truly mentally ill or poor without children, you're pretty much out of luck.

No. 173328

I think that's a fucking insult to actually disabled people. I'm really disappointed in the WHO.

What can someone who "can't have sex" or who doesn't have children not do that someone who regularly gets laid can? How could this possibly affect their everyday life like it could someone in a wheelchair, someone with special needs, someone with a learning disability?

No. 173333

File: 1482623535238.jpg (38.03 KB, 526x522, 1328178165001.jpg)

I'm kind of embarrassed to admit this, but this article is really fucking offensive to me. Personally, I'm childfree and I don't think anyone should be allowed to have children. Thing is, I don't have a good relationship with my own mother and I assume I would also be a shitty mother, so I'm basically just projecting.

I think men especially should not be allowed to have, or even want children, because I hate men. But I'm also just upset at being perpetually single due to years of leftist feminist brainwashing in academia and the media making me completely undesirable as a partner. It sucks, but I can't deny myself this fundamental truth any longer.

Does anyone have any advice for me? I still live with my parents and I'm over 50k in debt from a degree I let my sociology professor talk me into. My career isn't fulfilling, I have no real friends and nobody wants to date me. The side effects from a combination of antidepressants and birth control I don't really need are intolerable. I'm petrified that this is still going to be my life when I'm 35 and I honestly feel like I should just kill myself :(

No. 173335

>>173333
how old are you now? what career do you have? what makes you so sure that you're undateable?

No. 173345

>>173333
>because I hate men.
>But I'm also just upset at being perpetually single

I'm sorry but I'm sort of confused. Are you a radical feminist or not a feminist at all or…? And how did "leftist feminist brain washing" and the media make you undesirable? Can you explain more?

No. 173432

>>173345
i read it as saying she was "brainwashed" into leftist feminism and realized it wasn't a fulfilling life choice for her and wants out.

>>173333
i think you should sort out your hatred of men before wanting a relationship with one.

No. 173439

>>173345
It doesn't make sense because it's a robot trying to cram as many buzzwords into his post as possible.

No. 173795

File: 1482888493373.jpg (13.87 KB, 248x297, 1234723987.jpg)

>>173439
>anyone who is against modern day feminism for any reason is a robot and a man.

No. 173800

>>173795
yeah, pretty much

No. 173818

File: 1482897619832.jpg (46.1 KB, 600x240, please stop posting.jpg)

>>173286
Daddy Issues: The Post

No. 173833

File: 1482900414541.jpg (71.11 KB, 850x400, quote-we-live-in-a-society-abs…)

>>173333
>>But I'm also just upset at being perpetually single due to years of leftist feminist brainwashing in academia and the media making me completely undesirable as a partner.
What the actual fuck anon get out of feminist academia than do a STEM subject or Law/economics heck even History if you're not even in school I hardly see how feminist shit would affect you it rarely becomes publicized, the ideas discussed are imaginary with little bases in fields like evolutionary psychology.

>>It sucks, but I can't deny myself this fundamental truth any longer.

How is this batshit you cooked up or garbled from modern feminist academia a solid truth, when did social science and sociology become actual science? ergo a reflection of absolute naturalistic truths.

>> I'm over 50k in debt from a degree

Lol nioce enjoy you're horrible debt for attempting to engage in a cancerous field that continuous to poison the well of potential knowledge for future generations and makes a joke out of modern science, mother of god anon you got problems that you seem to have caused on yourself i'd say your first mistake was trying to major in sociology kek. We all are in some deep shit debt i'm a BScTech Biotech major and computer science minor I don't do it because it's my passion I do it to eventually achieve something, money and prestige tech degrees also have job placement so as long as you B average you'll have a job in that field.

don't give up on possible job prospects but stop with the flaky, manipulative way you're dragging yourself through life take up something you know you will achieve something in, something tangible.

Now for your actual fucking views on the article.
>>I'm childfree and I don't think anyone should be allowed to have children
Why tho, I'd prefer adoption as i'm a tad on the anti natal scale of this shit due to children already fucking existing that require homes and loving families, compile this with the inevitable risk of over population, strain on resources, mental health and physical health of the pregnant mother and paternal father and adoption is always a better alternative the only issue is with waiting lists, birth control has become advanced enough as is to prevent accidental pregnancies.

>>heterosexual single men and women and gay men and women who want to have children will now be given

With any issue like this involving IVF and cloning I'm afraid that the remarkable technologies will be abused for vain gay couples, singles and hetero couples who refuse adoption probably ironically because it's unnatural or some unwarranted animalistic belief like that. The longterm implications is probably the most jarring though if couples are vain enough to go through with IVF what stops them from creating designer babies this shit wouldn't have to be heavily monitored if the average population of western societies wasn't as retarded as >>173333 obsessed with social shit when having no foundation or understanding of the science and possible future implications on the gene pool.
I can't think of anything more selfish because this is an act of selfishness on the entire human race.

There's a famous quote by Sagan that epitomized that moronic consumer based mentality that people put on towards science and technology, If these people really really fucking can't stand taking in a child who isn't theirs biologically the least selfish thing these people can do is rid themselves from the gene pool.

No. 173860

File: 1482908756446.jpg (24.04 KB, 300x400, 1344738093001.jpg)

>>173833
>rambling this much in response to an obvious bait post.

Please be better than this.



Delete Post [ ]
[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules ] [ ot / g / m ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Discord ]