{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
작성자: MuKoKu
7/28/2017 2:22:40 AM
22
Proposed solution for the pro-life/pro-choice debate
Get yourself either permanently or temporarily neutered. It's cost effective compared to all the birth control you'd eventually spend your money on, and it's one and done. Very little hassle. There's an extremely effective temporary procedure available to both genders. No babies die. Everyone is happy.
English
#Offtopic
-
17 답변Nope. Sex is a dirty sinful act that should be punished with eternal suffering and absolute hatred because it is so unnatural and an egregious slight against God and all he has worked for to make the human race the dominant power in the Galactic Council in his ever growing power struggle against Satan and his band of heretical intergalactic space demon pirate armada that is hellbent on corrupting the universe into a sinful orgy of dark evil and madness.
-
1 답변
-
25 답변작성자: PaulM1c3 7/28/2017 2:13:19 PMYou neuter cats man. There's easier ways to avoid conceiving than castrating yourself.
-
9 답변
-
1 답변Just keep it. People will get abortions if they want to. If they don't, they don't. You can't stop people from being people.
-
68 답변That's literally doesn't solve anything and people already do this. You have failed miserably.
-
7 답변
-
7 답변작성자: Zeldasavvy64 7/28/2017 4:05:04 AMHow about, at a certain age, every man gets a vasectomy and keeps their sperm at sperm bank. If you want child, go to the bank. If you don't want a child, then -blam!- to your heart's content.
-
8 답변
-
2 답변You could either let this be voluntary, which would mean that only a miniscule fraction of people would choose to pay money for an unnecessary and invasive procedure that would need a repeat down the line and isn't even 100% secure, or you'd make it mandatory, which would basically result in forced sterilization (which is a pretty bad thing) to address an already small issue. Not such a good solution if you think it through, I'm afraid.
-
2 답변Your saying that if you don't want kids to get fixed to ensure you don't have them. Your solution is to simple, please increase its complexity and decrease its effectiveness. The proposed plan places too much responsibility on the individual and therefore can not be implemented. Thank you for your suggestion though.
-
1 답변I agree that this is a viable solution for some, with obvious exceptions such as those who may want children later in life. I am as pro-choice as they come - but reducing the number and need for abortion is something any reasonable person should encourage.
-
3 답변There are two problems with this solution. One, it takes away the liberals' ability to advocate skirting responsibility. Two, it's entirely controversial for uber conservatives.
-
10 답변Well a few reasons as to why this wouldnt work.. First its not viable to provide "temporary neturs" to everyone. Second alotta pro lifers are holly rollin bible thumpers opposed to even condoms and birth controll much less a vesectame or something similar. Third for alotta pro choicers the argument isnt about whats responsible, ethical or prudent to do but whats easier to do. They care only of the choice of accepting or sherking responsability. To many of them just asking them to practice safe sex, take birth controll or even live abstinent for a bit is an insult to there freedom to be a slut, manwhore or otherwise "sexually liberated". Forth and most importantly and everyone forgets this. Its basically eugenics and its a [url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url] principle that will dispropornatly affect the poor and disadvantaged more than anyone. Your asking people to self sterlize and opt out the gene pool even temporally its pretty -blam!-ed up..
-
11 답변
-
1 답변I am all for mass permanent/temporary sterilization for most until they've proven their genes are worth passing on. Idiocracy is becoming a documentary.
