Teenage girls to be sterilized in Britain?

[Inyri]

Teenage girls aren't even physically meant to have chilren properly at their age! Yes, the have puberty in teenage years, which allows them to get pregnant, but their body is not fully developed enough to have the pregnancy correctly.

Their body wouldn't go through puberty if it wasn't ready for the consequences. Puberty happens because the body is ready, not for ****s and giggles.

 

Yes, sterilization isn't perfected yet though, so this idea shoudln't be done until it is so that the side-effects of it removed.

So I take it since you're so pro-sterilization you'd be willing to be sterilized as well? Or are you stuck in the 1950's still?

[Web Rider]

An excellent idea. I hope this idea carries over to many other countries. This will very likely help lower abortion rates... At least some country is doing something about this problem.

 

Will it? Maybe it will just postpone them. Just because a woman is 20 instead of 17 doesn't mean they still WANT a child. Lets say this plan went into action. Well, now you're teaching girls that from 12 to 17 they're sterile. What's the upside to no babies when having sex? oh, more sex! I know if I couldn't get anyone pregnant I'd probly be having loads of sex. Which means more STD transmission, which IMO, is FAR worse than abortions. I mean, aside from the fact that this is punishing all girls for the actions of a few(yes, a FEW), the results of "temporary" sterilization could be permanent sterilization.

 

Yes, these systems are NOT as safe as they're made out to be, women who "wear" them long enough can be made permanently sterile.

Only fallacious if you disregard her observation that they're doing it anyway w/o the benefit of sterilization, thus there's likely to be no/little impact on the desire to pursue recreational sex in the first place.

Like I said about punishing those who did nothing "wrong", the reason it WILL increase sex is because girls who normally wouldn't have sex due to fear of babies would be much more likly to do so. Some girls are having a lot of sex anyway, not all of them.

 

This is for teenage girls, not adult women. The rights of children and teenagwers are different than the rights of adults.

Which is really the clincher isn't it? People under 18 aren't people, they're property. I mean, how can we even claim to care about the dying babies in Uganda or some other god-forsaken nation when we're ready and willing to treat our OWN children like they aren't real people?

 

I'm no fan of teen pregnancy, but I mean, damn, show a little respect, I was those ages once, and while I'm not a girl, as others have pointed out, it takes two to tango. Girls don't just "get pregnant", the sperm must merge with a readied ova to produce a viable fertilized egg. Which means MEN are involved in the process.

 

Girls will have no(or much less) problem keeping their legs shut, as someone phrased it, if we get guys to stop asking them to spread 'em.

 

On a final note, yes, actually, most girls can go through pregnancy just fine from ages 15 and up. Historically it was actually much lower, where 18 made you an old woman, so girls could give birth at much younger ages. That has somewhat faded in modern times, though it often feels like it's moving back.

 

the whole idea is disgusting, if primarily just for human rights reasons.

[Quanon]

An excellent idea. I hope this idea carries over to many other countries. This will very likely help lower abortion rates... At least some country is doing something about this problem.

 

IMO this is far more worse then abortion...

 

This taking away girls/women deam to EVER have a child.

 

You might view abortion as some kind of murder, but if a girl/women is aware she can't support the child decently...

 

Well this just IMO, but I found this... well disturbing.

 

Its just far more radicale to take away the whole process of procreation then welll cut if off in progress.

 

Really... disturbing

[Darth333]

If these girls won't learn to control themselves, even after plenty of sex-ed, then someone should take charge and stop the problem.

What about the males' responsibility? As far as I know it takes a woman and a man to make a baby...

 

I can't believe we are even discussing such this. When I read the article I wasn't even sure if it was meant to be serious or not. It's a disgusting proposition.

[Quanon]

What about the males' responsibility? As far as I know it takes a woman and a man to make a baby...

 

I can't believe we are even discussing such this. When I read the article I wasn't even sure if it was meant to be serious or not. It's a disgusting proposition.

 

Agreed, why actually girls, they could easly take the man and cuts his... b***¨* off, it would be the same.

[adamqd]

I agree that unwanted Pregnancy and underage sex needs to drop, but the method is ridicules, I think there saying 12-17 because it's ILLEGAL to have sex, never mind have children until your 16

[Pavlos]

Something about the way that entire article was written makes me wonder how serious a publication that is.

 

The Daily Mail is a joke. Unfortunately it represents the part of the electorate that parties are most interested in.

 

Headlines range from "Immigration to cause fall in house prices" to "Drop in house prices may result in drop in house prices."

 

I still find it depressing that the father of modern liberty and liberalism comes from the same country as the Daily Heil.

 

InSid's already made reference to it but an expansive guide to British newspapers comes from Yes, Prime Minister - a sitcom about British politics that regardless of its age always seems to contain relevant criticism of any and all governments .

 

Prime Minister Hacker: I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country*; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

 

*The USSR, for clarity

[Totenkopf]

Only fallacious if you disregard her observation that they're doing it anyway w/o the benefit of sterilization, thus there's likely to be no/little impact on the desire to pursue recreational sex in the first place.

 

 

Like I said about punishing those who did nothing "wrong", the reason it WILL increase sex is because girls who normally wouldn't have sex due to fear of babies would be much more likly to do so. Some girls are having a lot of sex anyway, not all of them.

 

Problem is, any guess as to the actual amount of any increase is sheer speculation. If a lot of "underage" girls are having sex now for recreational purposes, there is no actual way to know if the rest of them are holding off b/c they value their virginity, have more foresight, family pressures, ad nauseam. She, too, is also guilty of speculating due to her assumption about the actual percentage of girls "doing it" at the moment.

 

Prime Minister Hacker: I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country*; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

 

 

Too funny. Gotta love cynical humor.

[Web Rider]

I agree that unwanted Pregnancy and underage sex needs to drop, but the method is ridicules, I think there saying 12-17 because it's ILLEGAL to have sex, never mind have children until your 16

 

really? It's perfectly legal here in the states so long as you're within 3 years of age and one of you isn't over 18(in cali), other states have lower ages.

[Darth333]

I agree that unwanted Pregnancy and underage sex needs to drop, but the method is ridicules, I think there saying 12-17 because it's ILLEGAL to have sex, never mind have children until your 16

Every jurisdiction has its own laws so that is not case everywhere. Besides, as to the age of consent to sexual relationships it varies greatly from country to country (and I think in the US it's a state thing). Dunno how accurate it is but this page should give you an idea: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

 

In Canada it can go as young as 12 yrs old if the other person is no more than 2yrs older.

[*Don*]

All this talk of sterilizing girls reminds me of the novels Brave New World and 1984.

I don't know why....

[DarthJebus05]

Why would it affect the number of rapes in any way? I don't think the rapists of the world are thinking 'omg must not rape, might have to pay child support!'

 

Maybe I should have said: It will increase the number of unprotected rapes, thus meaning no condoms. If the rapist has a sexual transmitted disease, imagine the suffering the girl would go through.

 

There are more downsides to this idea than there are upsides.

 

:EDIT: Forgot to quote this:

 

6. Speaking of 'safe sex', what about STDs?

[DeadYorick]

I doubt a Rapist is going to do protected sex. Just imagine a Rapist tying a girl to a chair and ready to do it when he suddenly says.

 

"Oh sorry I forgot to put a condom on." I think that Rapists are going to just do it quickly and quietly. They don't have to worry about pregnancy remember and I doubt they are going to care about STDS.

 

All this talk of sterilizing girls reminds me of the novels Brave New World and 1984.

I don't know why....

 

Maybe because they both have big dystopian themes and Brave new world has Sterilization in it?

[*Don*]

Maybe because they both have big dystopian themes and Brave new world has Sterilization in it?

 

lol, well yes.

I was trying to be sarcastic.

It's so much harder to do sarcasm in a online forum.

[DarthJebus05]

I doubt a Rapist is going to do protected sex. Just imagine a Rapist tying a girl to a chair and ready to do it when he suddenly says.

 

"Oh sorry I forgot to put a condom on." I think that Rapists are going to just do it quickly and quietly. They don't have to worry about pregnancy remember and I doubt they are going to care about STDS.

 

Lets say you're a rapist. And you might get aids from a girl you rape. Would you rape without a condom? I know I wouldn't, and I'm not saying I will or ever rape, but if I forgot 'my' condom, I would leave the girl there and go find another one after I got the condom first.

[Rogue Nine]

I still fail to see what teenage sterilization has to do with rape. How will the fact that a girl is sterilized change how and why rapists rape? Sterilization is a contraceptive measure, not an anti-STD measure.

[TK-8252]

I'm a little too lazy to read the article in its entirety, but is this proposal something that is mandatory for all girls or some kind of voluntary thing that the government will pay for girls to be sterilized for a few years?

 

I would doubt that something like this could be mandatory, otherwise Britain would have joined the likes of Communist China when it comes to human rights and personal freedom.

[Jvstice]

The Daily Mail is a joke. Unfortunately it represents the part of the electorate that parties are most interested in.

 

Thanks. I'd wondered about them as a source and how serious a possibility it was to actually happen.

Lets say you're a rapist. And you might get aids from a girl you rape. Would you rape without a condom? I know I wouldn't, and I'm not saying I will or ever rape, but if I forgot 'my' condom, I would leave the girl there and go find another one after I got the condom first.

 

I don't think that rapists tend to either be thoughtful, or the brightest tools in the shed.

 

TK: Mandatory, but supposedly temporary.

[DarthJebus05]

I still fail to see what teenage sterilization has to do with rape. How will the fact that a girl is sterilized change how and why rapists rape? Sterilization is a contraceptive measure, not an anti-STD measure.

 

Men tend to like sex better if it's unprotected. Thus it will cause all those sickos out there to prey on teenagers even more without the fear of getting the girl pregnant. But it will cause the girl to contract a STD, possibly killing her.

[DeadYorick]

Thus it will cause all those sickos out there to prey on teenagers even more without the fear of getting the girl pregnant. .

 

Why would wether or not she gets pregnant be a factor? Like it has been mentioned before

 

Originally Posted by InyriForge

Why would it affect the number of rapes in any way? I don't think the rapists of the world are thinking 'omg must not rape, might have to pay child support!'

 

I doubt a rapist would really care whether the girl gets pregnant or not. They would probably kill the girl afterwards. This is the way many rape cases go. Plus Rapists don't really care about getting an STD. All they care about is filling some empty void in their life by raping an innocent girl.

[Rogue Nine]

Men tend to like sex better if it's unprotected. Thus it will cause all those sickos out there to prey on teenagers even more without the fear of getting the girl pregnant. But it will cause the girl to contract a STD, possibly killing her.

First off, most rapes are not about the sex, but power and domination. Rapists do not rape just for the sex.

 

Secondly, as asked before, why would a rapist care if they got girls pregnant? If they're raping someone, it's a pretty good bet they care very little for their victim's well-bring.

 

Thirdly, I have no idea what point you're trying to make with the STD reference. Again, sterilization is a contraceptive measure and has absolutely nothing to do with STDs.

[Jae Onasi]

Men tend to like sex better if it's unprotected.

Yeah, well it's time for the men to grow up and be responsible. You don't want a kid? You take the responsibility for not having a kid. The difference in sensation is made into far more big of a deal than it actually is. If men are going to tango, the little man needs to be suited up appropriately.

[Jvstice]

Yeah, well it's time for the men to grow up and be responsible. You don't want a kid? You take the responsibility for not having a kid. The difference in sensation is made into far more big of a deal than it actually is. If men are going to tango, the little man needs to be suited up appropriately.

 

I agree, and you'd have to have a society and a court system that takes it a lot more serious than ours does if you really wanted to impact this.

[Jae Onasi]

Or we could just parent the kids properly. My kids are my responsibility--not society's, and certainly not the court system's.

[Jvstice]

I plan on making time for my kids when I have them, but I can't speak for every other parent out there. And frankly, I don't look for a lot of people to suddenly start taking their kids seriously. Many do. Many don't.

 

I don't look for that to suddenly change in either case.