Thread: Lets get pregnant... Together!!!

Originally Posted by Saizou

I would have to disagree in principle. You shouldn't refrain from setting rules just because the people who are affected might cause trouble, unless you reasonably expect that the enforcement itself would cause more harm than the status quo. And in this situation, I can't see how that would be the case. After all, the majority of the world's religious people aren't so indoctrinated that they have let go of all reason, now are they?

They shouldn't necessarily be too indoctrinated in order to dislike that policy, nor should you even be religious to dislike it - take a look at SD. I think, if there's ever the intention to apply a policy like this one, it should be left up to the people to decide if they want it or not (i.e. unless the situation demands this policy to be enforced).

Another idiot teenage pregnancy. Here a 14yr old pops off to the loo at school and flushes the kid. Way to go. Too bad she's too young to get the death penalty.

FOXNews.com - Texas Teen Faces Capital Murder Charges in Bathroom Death of Her Newborn - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Originally Posted by Saizou

Why is that arrogant? I won't start the whole religious debate here, but it seems to me that by this reasoning any other position on the existance of god would be equally arrogant.

It's arrogant because you don't know. Nobody knows. Nobody can know. Just believing or not believing might not be arrogant, but when you start forcing your beliefs on other peoples lifestyles, then it becomes pretty arrogant. The Jehova's Witnesses don't force you to go to church every Sunday to save your soul. They'll pop by and knock on your door, but if you tell them to go away, they will. We shouldn't start forcing them to "go to Hell" for our own beliefs. We can suggest it to them, but if they tell us to go away, we should. It's just about respect.

Originally Posted by Saizou

But they don't know. They merely think they do because they are indoctrinated in their beliefs. Now, while I know that you probably can't eliminate religious indoctrination, you can still prevent its most harmful manifestations. Furthermore if someone is brainwashed enough to accept their religious teachings without question (as people who willingly die for their faith obviously are), can we truly say that they act of their own will? I would say that you can't, as their indoctrination overrides all rational thought.

You don't know either. Where's your categorical proof that there is no God? You have just been indoctrinated in your beliefs by Science. These people aren't out bombing cities, they just want to be able to die in peace with the same body they arrived in. Leave them alone.

Originally Posted by saizou

These two arguments lead to the conclusion that i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions can't really be considered to be acting willingly. It essentially should be considered a form of insanity. Therefore, the state is perfectly justified to force these people to do so, just as they are justified to force minors to do so.
...
But why not on adults who don't "know better" for some reason?

Come on. At some point Big Brother has to step down and let people do what they want to do. Holding a belief is not insanity.

Originally Posted by Saizou

Well, you don't have to be sorry for anything. However, I still can't understand your reasoning. Shouldn't morality be based on logic and reason?

Not at all! They're two very different things. Law is not based on morality. It's based on cold reason.

Originally Posted by Saizou

I would have to disagree in principle. You shouldn't refrain from setting rules just because the people who are affected might cause trouble, unless you reasonably expect that the enforcement itself would cause more harm than the status quo. And in this situation, I can't see how that would be the case. After all, the majority of the world's religious people aren't so indoctrinated that they have let go of all reason, now are they?

While I agree with that to a certain extent, it's only a logical argument to back up a moral one. There's already reson enough not to do it on moral grounds. And anyway, as far as "letting go of all reason" goes, if you and your government decided to sentence me and all my brethren to an eternity of damnation, I'd probably want to kick up a fuss as well. It's not like religious people have never been known to fight for their beliefs.

^I think Saizou's point is that even if they tried to force you to go to Church, that wouldn't harm you, or anyone else. However, indoctrinating people into not having blood transfusions - when it can save their lives - can have negative effects. Not that I'm going against their beliefs, but that is a valid point.

I do think there's something amusing about of bunch of people who have never experienced what it is like to raise a child arguing about this. Not that it invalidates all your points.

My thoughts, after trolling the thread.

It seems apparent that teenage pregnancy fucks with a lot of people's lives (the mother, the father, the parents and grandparents of said individuals, the baby, etc). And not in a good way.

I think Europeans view sex in a different way than most Americans. It is difficult for many Europeans to imagine attitudes towards sex in some parts of the South and Mid-West. I mention this because I think if the pill were made mandatory (and I could not abide genetic alteration at birth or something along those lines -- too many unknowns in that field), I think you would see a notable increase in sex acts in teenage years in America. And I think that would, by it's natural course, lead to higher rates of STD incidence.

Further, the pill itself is a bit problematic. The fact is that nothing was stopping these girls from "getting a ride, taking a train, or even walking," as one article pointed out, to the nearest clinic to get contraception (and God forbid anyone anyone undertake one of those heinous endeavours to save their lives). Who is to say that these young girls who were so irresponsible as to think it was a good idea to enter into a Baby Pact (peer pressure, blahblah), would be likely to take their pills religiously, at the same time every day, to give themselves the best chance of the pill being effective. The pill is, basically, very nearly 100% effective if the woman takes it properly and regularly. The pregnancies that occur despite women being on the pill are mostly due to people taking it irregularly (or missing days, etc). Point being, pill is not a panacea to teenage pregnancy (so those of you advocating sterilization from ages 11-18 would need to be undertaking a more drastic measure).

I think sex education is important.

In a way, this argument strikes me as a blown up version of the argument that people over a certain age should not be allowed to drive. Similar studies stating the dangers of having elderly on the road and so on. I think that issue is even less contentious than that of mandating birth control from 11 to 18. My point is, that kind of legislature would never pass in the US. Not that I expect anyone to disagree with me on this point.

In the end, I find myself inexplicably balking at the concept of the government mandating that women (minors, in particular) take a particular drug.

Steal has a point about personal freedom. The Government shouldn't tell you what to do with your body (Roe vs Wade). However, in Europe, birth control isn't a friggin' taboo.

Also, these kids pick and choose when to be religious. My cousin chose to have sex before marriage, but not to use birth control. That is fucking weak.

That's called faith henchy. NOT surprised. Some people choose to believe what's convenient. Imagine if you did everything that was on the bible. Remember that post where outrageous things from the bible were quoted? Those are some outrageous things and you'll be labelled crazy by the society if you ever did them.

^The thing is, if you're going to follow your faith in a manner that's the most convenient for you, why not use contraceptives? After all, society won't lash at you for not having sex before marriage; however, having kids when you're not able to sustain them will place a burden on society. Additionally, wouldn't it be more convenient for you not to have kids until you actually have the means to raise them properly?

unbelivable... i think that is the fault of themselves in first place, their parents in the second place, and some TV shows in the third place...

Blackbishop

Originally Posted by Dante Obscuri

^I think Saizou's point is that even if they tried to force you to go to Church, that wouldn't harm you, or anyone else. However, indoctrinating people into not having blood transfusions - when it can save their lives - can have negative effects. Not that I'm going against their beliefs, but that is a valid point.

Yeah, I get the point, but even if it doesn't hurt you, you still wouldn't like being forced to go to Church, would you? Even though it wouldn't hurt you.

These people think that being forced to have the blood transfusion will send them to Hell. If you would kick up a fuss about mandatory church-going, even though it wouldn't hurt you, imagine the fuss that would be kicked up about mandatory eternal damnation?