Birth control at birth?
How many people would be for and against standardized birth control at birth. what i mean is that everyone, when born, have something installed in them preventing them from giving birth or getting someone pregnant. just say that "something" exist for the sake of argument. at the age of 18 years old that individual is allowed to take that "something" out without any questions asked or money spent. what i am asking is would you be for or against it. and please have an argument for or against it and do not just say "its stupid", "immoral", "against religion", "that rules", or anything like that. have a sound logical argument one way or the other. please do not use religion because not everyone believes what you may believe.
- SqueakersLv 41 decade agoFavorite Answer
Well it generally sounds like a good idea, but its like saying that its ok to have as much premarital sex as you want cuz there is no consiquenses. I mean that is the whole point of sex ed is to TRY to instill some responsiblility into the young. Where is all of the responsiblility if it completely taken away?
- 1 decade ago
In a very perfect world, that would be a good idea. I'm assuming the only purpose would be to eliminate teenage pregnancy. If that was possible of being effective, unobtrusive, removable, free, painless, etc. then it would make a lot of sense. It would, however, decrease the worry of becoming pregnant, therefore possibly increasing adolescent sexual activity, which includes risk of STDs. There's also the fact to consider that we are not even capable of making babies until puberty, so all that time (almost 13 years sometimes) with "something" in place to prevent pregnancy, is really unnecessary. In that time, complications could develop, or it could grow into your body, and be impossible to remove. It would take loads of research to really answer this question, but an interesting idea.
I had an after thought! This would be a fabulous idea if you had to PASS A TEST before it could be removed!! Men and women alike!! Wouldn't that be fabulous?? You have to literally pass a test before you can procreate!! yes!
- 1 decade ago
I like the idea, but I don't think it could work. First, you have the defensive "great teen mothers" who think they "bond better with their children when there is only a 12 year age difference." They would be totally against it. Never mind that it's hard to go to middle school when you're up with a baby all night. Oh wait a minute. This small demographic may be the only people against this. Huh.
Actually, I think we as a society should help our youth see the value in saving our sexuality for the person we marry/plan to spend our lives with. I really wish that value was instilled in me. My husband waited for me, and I wish I would've waited for him.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I think its a great idea--- but I think saying you have to be 18 might be a bit tough...maybe it should be at any time w/parental approval or just any time.
I think it there were a semi-permanent BC which you could just "leave alone" until you want to have a kid and then say "Okay, let's start trying"....that would be awesome.
I think ths world/country is about freedom and telling everyone they cant have a kid utnil atleast 18 is a bit overboard.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- AlwaysHopeLv 41 decade ago
i would be completely against it.
why does everyone think that teen parent are bad parents?
there are pleanty of good teen parents out there, that do give their baby a good life? so your saying just because im A teen then i cant be a good mother? i dont think so buddy, i think that being younge my self allows me to have a better bond between us as mother and son. why do you think parents say its not good to have too big of an age gap between children??? Because the age gap doesnt allow them to bond very well. not to mention there are some bad older parents out there too. age has nothing to do with it, and inableing your child not to have childern untill there 18 is completely retarted. that would only tell teens that that can not get pregnant so then they would go have unprotected sex and AIDS would be even more of a threat then it already is, and STD's would spread so much faster. the governtment is trying to put wayy to many restrictions on us theese days. last i knew it was america, and america is NOT a dictatorship, but it seems like were headed that way.
- 1 decade ago
That is a tough one, there are good things and bad things to it.
It would be good because no one would have to worry about their children having children so young.
I think I would be against it for the simple fact that it wouldn't help other health factors, like stds, and would make teens think it's ok to have sex.
- Anita GLv 51 decade ago
Because of the high rate of teenage pregnancy these days I would be completely for it. I have two daughters and would never think twice about it....I would just need to know that when she is ready to have children that there will be no problems or health risk :-)
- 1 decade ago
I think they wouldn't have the worry of being pregnant so they'd have sex more. alot of people dont worry about std's. If they didn't know they had it in them and you can still use the "you could get pregnant" tactic I'd be all for it.
- AmandaLv 71 decade ago
Instead of creating a "something" I think all schools should have a mandatory sex education class.
- Mama To 5Lv 41 decade ago
I would be for it, my only issue would be how it would work (I know, logistics.. that's me though) hormonal things cause side effects etc. otherwise I think it would be a great idea.Source(s): Mom to 5 Emergency Medical Technician Emtmomto5.. yahoo IM.. feel free to contact me Nova's Miracle Of Life video free online.. awesome! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/miracle/program.html