Daleth

Well done, spawn. I knew there had to be someone out there who could come up with something entirely absurd!

On an old thread, someone was suggesting that a device be invented to prevent fertility 100% for both genders and that when they'd found an appropriate spouse, they would have the device shut off (which I guess presumes all marriages are for the making of babies). Anyway, that was someone's futuristic but currently impossible solution.

But it's available to us now. Boys need to be monitored for first ejaculation. Then they wank a couple times in a cup, more than enough sperm to make all the babies they'd ever want, the sperm is frozen, and the boys get vasectomies. Then when they want babies, they just make a withdrawal from the sperm bank, thaw, insert. Simple.

Thanks for the giggle.
Dal

fundamental spawn

State managed reproduction is an idea dealth with at length in Plato's "The Republic." Plato, perhaps the foremost thinker in the history of the world, is good enough for me. I'll take him over big-haired preachers and their curious allies, overpopulaton promoting liberals, anyday.

We are just fauna. Evolved to the top of the intellectual chain, perhaps, but just animated matter become self-aware. Not every person is special, not every fertilized egg is special. In the cosmic sense, no organism is special though, maybe, unusual (maybe not). Plato saw this: for civilization to work close to optimally, of course reproduction (civilization's renewal process) has to be managed.

Daleth

That's all dandy, spawn, but you didn't answer the question in the OP, or even approach it.

You're saying, "We can do away with the need for abortion by having the government regulate reproduction." How? What would the gov't do? Handing it over to the gov't is nothing like a whole answer.

Would they select which female was to carry the child of a given male? Would they have sex? Would sex be outlawed? How can that be enforced? If women were forcibly impregnated by the state, don't you figure they'd often seek abortion?

What you've given is just no answer, so I'm still considering it an intentional joke on your part.

Dal

fundamental spawn

No ..... I'm saying there is no real need to "do away" with abortion. Why? Why, outside of offending some non-existent creator, is there a need to eliminate this population control practice?

The state, as Plato wrote, should define within what classes procreation occur and yes, some should be sterilized (the retarded, physically or mentally unfit, other defective organisms).

Daleth

OK. I was assuming you were responding to the question in the OP. Seemed a reasonable assumption.

Dal

Rushianbeing

Agree with all the folks here who said early and steady sex ed, and easy access to birth control-even as pre-teens-are the only activities that can have any chance at reducing the numbers of abortions. It's been established over and over that access to or knowledge of birth control does not cause pre-teens and teens to start fucking like rabbits, as the fundies would have us believe (I believe someone on this forum posted an article from CBS.com to that effect, but I can't remember what thread it was on).

When I was a health educator at a family planning clinic in Wyoming, I was told by the nurse practioners, general practitioners, and OB/GYNs that we worked with that the risk of complications from the the birth control pill is the same as or LESS THAN the risk of complications from taking, say, Benadryl or Robitussin. So why isn't the birth control pill available over-the-counter? This is clearly not a regulation that is in place because of sound supporting medical evidence. This is simply a value judgment by the paternalistic, fundamentalist powers-that-be in this society, the people that want us to believe that such pills are dangerous, complicated medicine. Why do they want us to believe this? Because over-the-counter birth control would make it so much easier for women to control their own reproductive powers, and would, as an earlier poster here said, go a long way toward de-deifying motherhood. And de-deifiying motherhood would make it a lot harder to keep women subservient. Women are encouraged to believe that their ability to procreate is mystical and magical because that's the easiest way of getting them to believe that they are actually happy being subservient to men. The status quo is maintained, and everyone's happy. If a woman wants to control her own reproductive organs, she is subtly punished by being required to visit doctors on a regular basis, fill out forms, tell the docs how many sex partners she has, answer other invasive questions about her sex life, etc. etc.
MANY doctors in this country even refuse to provide IUD's to women who have never had children, telling these women that there is a risk of uterine infection from IUD use that COULD result in their infertility. Once again, this attitude is not supported by the medical evidence. The possiblity of infection now, after the IUD scare in the 70's, is miniscule, but these docs won't even give the woman an opportunity to sign a form releasing the docs from responsiblity should this happen-they simply flat-out refuse to do it, telling the woman to "come back when you're older and you're sure you don't want children" (I know this from personal experience). In other words, if you're a woman, you do not have the mental capacity to decide whether or not you want to procreate. The same docs that told me this, however, perform vasectomies on any man who asks for one, whether or not he's a father, whether or not he's of a certain age, no questions asked. (I confirmed this bit of info with the nurses at a facility I went to in Tallahassee, Florida, in my own struggle to be deemed mentally competent enough to get an IUD.) And I'm no doctor, but I believe vasectomies are (in the absence of complicated microsurgery that is by no means guaranteed to work) a PERMANENT sterilization procedure, unlike an IUD, which, upon removal, leaves the woman able to get pregnant in the next five minutes should a willing and able partner be handy.
When I became engaged two years ago, I was told by my doctor when I asked for an IUD that she (yes, SHE!!) would not do it because I had never had children, and that since I was getting married anyway, "it doesn't matter if you get pregnant". Word for word, I swear.
Clear, blatant double-standard as to which gender gets to control their ability to create new life.

(whoa, did I get off-topic here?? Sorry!!)

If pro-lifers were truly interested in abolishing abortion, they would be out on every street corner handing out condoms and Ortho-Novum. The truth is, in most cases "pro-life" is not the proper term to use-it's "anti-choice". And the motivation is not to "save babies", it's to keep women from having an unprecedented power over their lives.

brighid

I am going to disagree about birth-control pills being non-prescription. I think they should be covered by insurance like Viagra is, but I have had too many complications with taking the pill (more as I got older) and know too many other women that had problems with taking it as well to feel comfortable endorsing such easy access. There are some women who shouldn’t take the pill, and different pills can have very drastic effects. I became clinically depressed and had fibroid growths in my breast while on Yasmin (which resulted in an ultrasound and mammogram to make sure I didn’t have cancer), and as soon as I stopped taking it the lump went away and eventually I overcame the depression. I think it should be readily available and I shouldn’t have to pay full price for it when all my other prescriptions are discounted or free according to my health plan.

Frankly, I think condoms and birth control pills (as well as other preventative devices) should be free for anyone who needs them. When I had no health insurance I went to the free, county clinic for my exams, pills and condoms. I became birth control central and readily gave out my extra condoms and spermicides to all my friends. I had a basket, in my bathroom cabinet that any of my friends could simply walk in and help themselves.

Brighid

Rushianbeing

That's an awesome idea about the basket!! Right on!!

Ironically, I myself had blood clots in my leg at age 24 most likely (never conclusively) caused by being on the combo pill. That's why I was searching for an IUD, and I was so completely taken aback with the attitude I was confronted with!! But I still think pills should be available over-the-counter, with package inserts, just like other drugs. If you know the risks and warning signs, you know what to look for. Of course, a lot of people simply don't bother to learn about the drugs that they're on...I know doctors are afraid of getting sued, and I really don't blame them for that.

And I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree that at the very LEAST birth control pills, shots, patches, etc. should be FULLY covered by insurance!! This is basic health care people!!

brighid

When my son is old enough I am going to supply him with his own basket of preventatives. Boys needs to be taught equal responsibility just as girls should. It takes two to make a baby, or transmit diseases.

Brighid

Daleth

I am not so sure about BCP being non-prescription either (although I enjoyed the hell out of your post, Rushianbeing). I can't say I have a firm opinion on that, and I'd have to read a lot to develop one.

Although I agree with Brigid that the same pill isn't right for all, I also think it might be easier for a woman to pay attention to her own response and change accordingly. That's because I had a very hard time trying to convince my doctor to change my script when I was having problems. It's not as if doctors do anything scientific like measure hormones in your body and determine what you individually need. It's totally hit-n-miss, and if you know enough to go to your doctor and complain, mightn't you also know enough to change pills yourself? I don't know. I don't have a medical understanding of the risks.

Lack of insurance coverage for BCP is just plain criminal.

Dal