-->
@Alec
@Dr.Franklin
If you have sex 100x, then over time, there is a chance that you end up getting her pregnant.
Somehow I don't see that as being a likely problem for either you or Dr. Franklin.
Mandatory vasectomies worldwide.
Posts
Total:
101
-->
@Alec
Why would anyone resist?
Uhhh... because human rights violation? Lmao.
so the demand influx would help reduce the price.
That is literally the exact opposite of how supply and demand works 🤦
Increased demand means increased price. 🤦
And you are proposing to do this to over 3 billion people 🤦
Because you think wealth is litterally a genetic trait 🤦
-->
@Vader
@bmdrocks21
3 billion times $1000 is $3 trillion
Let me guess... This money is going to come from... Lemme get in the Alec mindset here... uhhh... I know! Let's tax something! What should we tax? Uhhh, I am wearing shoes. Tax on shoes? Nah people might just not buy shoes... I know! Let's tax walking! Surgically install a government issued fitbit into everyone's wrist to track the number of steps they take and charge them 2¢ per step.
How to pay for the fitbit installation though? Hmmm... I know! Let's tax something else!
Oh by the way though I am totes a libertarian and totes against excessive taxation especially the blatantly regressive kind.
🤦
Seems legit
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Lmfao! That was pretty good.
Nah, man. According to him, open borders cures everything. When they debase Americans' wages and excessively tax them to pay for the vasectomies, they will be below the wealth threshold to have children. Then, all of the impoverished people will die off. Poverty will be 100% eradicated based on Alec's five year plan.
:P
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
bro prematial sex not coooooool
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You really need to stop obsessing over porn and sex. It is not mentally healthy.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Im not obsessed with it
bruh
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think you misunderstand me, let me clarify...
There are two groups of people.
Group one is obsessed with porn. They either watch porn for several hours a day or they do something like make over 6000 posts on a debate fourm, half of which are on the topic of porn because they are thinking about it all the time.
Group two is not obsessed with porn. They either don't watch it and don't think too much about it or they watch it for maybe 20-30 mins every few days and otherwise don't think about it too much.
It is not mentally healthy to be in the first group for long periods of time.
You are clearly in the first group.
You should begin to make attempts to move yourself to the second group.
Have I made my position more clear now?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
half of which are on the topic of porn
are you actually serious
-->
@Vader
No one ever has sex 100 times firstly
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/07/how-much-sex-should-couples-have/4680968002/ states that the average couple has sex 100x in about 2 years.
Plan B is always effective
Not all females use Plan B though. Making people take a pill every time they have sex to prevent abortions requires that we know when people are having sex. Mandatory vasectomies on the other hand, is a one time surgery that once it's done, it's done and abortions basically end with it, all with unintended pregnancies hitting 0/year.
In the future, condoms will become better overall at preventing.
It's a piece of rubber. I don't know how much it could improve.
If we teach people about it and have sexual education mandatory, then we can inform the public more. Teens want to do it because they are not educated. In Illinois, it is a requirement, and people are informed, which means they know how to practice.
Sexual education is already mandatory. Unintended pregnancies still occur. It's easier to provide vastectomies to people than to educate the youth on some topic that isin't 100% effective.
Even when they are educated about sex safety, many teens want sex without protection. Mandatory vasectomies are a good way to allow them to do unprotected sex, which a lot of people want.This is simply lies
How so?
But the start would be expensive. It would take time to lower the prices too, and even so, the equipment will still stay the same
If the supply skyrockets by the government hiring doctors to do this, then the cost would stay at about $1000/vastecomy.
So cut our national defense from threats around the world
The threats that attack the US don't need a military the size of the US's. If we cut our spending by 50%, our military spending would still be like double China's, and we are in NATO, so NATO would help protect us if we get attacked. We shouldn't be spending as much as we currently do on the military anyway, but this is off topic. We would be preventing 40 million annual abortions from this policy. People also can have more sex.
Then it is authoritarian. Authoritarian policies are god awful
I'm not a statist on most things, just a few, and probably less than either of the 2 parties. Since you support big government on the military, we both support big government/statism in some areas. I'd rather use the government to save people's lives if it's in a cheap, effective way, not to take and destroy them from a big military that alienates us from the world and doesn't defend freedom.
-->
@Alec
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/07/how-much-sex-should-couples-have/4680968002/ states that the average couple has sex 100x in about 2 years.
No where in your article does it state that. It says some have 12-14x, which is a different scope, and age is usually lower than baseline. In fact, 26% of couples are doing the once a week and some even two months according to the doctor involved
Not all females use Plan B though. Making people take a pill every time they have sex to prevent abortions requires that we know when people are having sex. Mandatory vasectomies on the other hand, is a one time surgery that once it's done, it's done and abortions basically end with it, all with unintended pregnancies hitting 0/year.
Plan B is supposed to be used as a last resort in case the condom is ineffective at performing itself, it should not be used every time sexual intercourse is done upon someone. A condom is there to protect 99% of the time
Sexual education is already mandatory. Unintended pregnancies still occur. It's easier to provide vastectomies to people than to educate the youth on some topic that isin't 100% effective.
It's mandatory in 24 states and required by law
If the supply skyrockets by the government hiring doctors to do this, then the cost would stay at about $1000/vastecomy.
The government then has to do the following
A) Pay the doctors
B) Upgrade equipment
C) Buy facilities
D) Direct people to go and do this if it is a LAW
They waste resources to do this entire project, versus allocating those resources somewhere else, eg; universal health care. Universal health care would be able to solve all of this, and if you simply redirected the funds here to UHC, then this would not be a problem, and could be a policy you can include giving more access to everyone
D) Direct people to go and do this if it is a LAW
They waste resources to do this entire project, versus allocating those resources somewhere else, eg; universal health care. Universal health care would be able to solve all of this, and if you simply redirected the funds here to UHC, then this would not be a problem, and could be a policy you can include giving more access to everyone
The threats that attack the US don't need a military the size of the US's. If we cut our spending by 50%, our military spending would still be like double China's, and we are in NATO, so NATO would help protect us if we get attacked. We shouldn't be spending as much as we currently do on the military anyway, but this is off topic. We would be preventing 40 million annual abortions from this policy. People also can have more sex.
China's military is rapidly growing despite our spending 2x. They are competitive with us now within 30 years of time from a modern standpoint. They also have more troops, and near equal in everything. War in China would destroy us, and we need to defend against them, and not expose ourselves as vulnerable. Then if NATO happens to join, it's WWIII, idiotic.
Also you are not saving lives. You are destroying lives. You are preventing lives from forming by destroying the system of creation. Not only that, but accidents do happen no matter what. You are forming number without any logic or reasoning. We would still have abortions and that number would maybe slightly decrease, but it not drastically change it
Also you are not saving lives. You are destroying lives. You are preventing lives from forming by destroying the system of creation. Not only that, but accidents do happen no matter what. You are forming number without any logic or reasoning. We would still have abortions and that number would maybe slightly decrease, but it not drastically change it
-->
@Alec
I dont think mandatory vasectomies are reasonable
-->
@Dr.Franklin
are you actually serious
Yes. Obviously.
Vasectomies still have a failure rate. I suggest removing the penises of males at birth. This will ensure that there are absolutely no more unwanted pregnancies (and hence abortions).
-->
@Vader
So, 26% of the population will hit that 100 mark in 2 years according to your numbers. If they are having sex every 2 months, they hit that mark in under 17 years.In fact, 26% of couples are doing the once a week and some even two months according to the doctor involved
Plan B is supposed to be used as a last resort in case the condom is ineffective at performing itself, it should not be used every time sexual intercourse is done upon someone. A condom is there to protect 99% of the timeNot all women use Plan B when they have to, so we can't depend on that.
It's mandatory in 24 states and required by law
Have abortions been eliminated from these states? No. Because sex ed isin't 100% effective. It can be used in addition to my policy though.
The government then has to do the followingA) Pay the doctorsB) Upgrade equipmentC) Buy facilitiesD) Direct people to go and do this if it is a LAW
I think the doctor payment is what the $1000 fee would cost. Equipment doesn't have to be upgraded, only made more numerous. Facilities could be bought, and when this project ends, they could be sold at a profit, How is bullet point D a problem?
Universal health care would be able to solve all of this, and if you simply redirected the funds here to UHC, then this would not be a problem, and could be a policy you can include giving more access to everyone
I'd be fine with adding this policy on to UHC/Medicare for all.
China's military is rapidly growing despite our spending 2x.
As of right now, their military spending isn't that high. When it becomes comparable to NATO's military spending, then we can increase our spending. As of right now, we don't need a military 5x the size of China's.
They are competitive with us now within 30 years of time from a modern standpoint. They also have more troops, and near equal in everything. War in China would destroy us, and we need to defend against them, and not expose ourselves as vulnerable. Then if NATO happens to join, it's WWIII, idiotic.
If NATO joins, then it would help the US beat China. Also, if this becomes a mandatory policy worldwide, then it would weaken China because they wouldn't reproduce anymore since the Chinese couldn't afford to pay the huge reversal fee that has to be paid ever time before they have a kid. If China's not reproducing anymore, it makes them dependant on labor from other countries that can afford the reversal fee, making them have to abandon communism in order to attract western migrants; the only people who can afford this process. The existing Chinese benefit because they could have as much sex as they want and not get the girl pregnant. At the same time, it forces China to abandon communism if they wish to attract migrants from around the world.
Also you are not saving lives. You are destroying lives
The policy would save lives by preventing the fetus to be formed, only to be killed. Preventing a life from forming is not the same as killing an existing life. Otherwise, priests would be murderers from preventing lives from forming by being abstinent.
Not only that, but accidents do happen no matter what.
After the vasectomy is 2 months old (or the guy ejactulates 20x, whichever is done first, with some guys going further for safety), they could have unprotected sex without even the slightest risk of unwanted pregnancy. The effectiveness rate would be 100%.
You are forming number without any logic or reasoning.
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide states that 56 million abortions happen per year worldwide, so I was close. THe cite states:
During 2010–2014, an estimated 56 million induced abortions occurred each year worldwide.
Virtually all of these abortions can be eliminated if this policy goes into effect, preventing tens of millions of deaths annually.
We would still have abortions
How so?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
because human rights violation?
It is necessary to prevent and end a bigger human rights violation; an unborn genocide.
Increased demand means increased price.
I would want to increase the supply with it. More vasectomy doctors to vasectomized the populace.
Let me guess... This money is going to come from... Lemme get in the Alec mindset here... uhhh... I know! Let's tax something! What should we tax? Uhhh, I am wearing shoes. Tax on shoes? Nah people might just not buy shoes... I know! Let's tax walking! Surgically install a government issued fitbit into everyone's wrist to track the number of steps they take and charge them 2¢ per step.
I don't support a sin tax to pay for this, and if I did, I wouldn't tax walking. I'd rather have the UN pay for it by taxing the countries to end abortion. It would cost about $3.6 trillion, but this cost can be spread over a 5 year period, costing $720 billion/year for 10 years. It still sounds like a lot, but the whole world would be paying for it, so per year it would cost about $100 per taxpayer to pay and abortions get eliminated in the process, the people getting the vasectomies don't have to spend any more money on birth control, they don't have to pay the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to raise a child that doesn't exist because they prevented it's existence from occurring until they were ready for one more kid, if they save tens of thousands of dollars on a kid, $100/taxpayer on average seems like a small price to pay for such huge benefits to the economy and in terms of preventing 40 to 50 million illegal, unsafe abortions per year.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Immigration is a different topic to this one.
When they debase Americans' wages and excessively tax them to pay for the vasectomies,
You call a $100 tax per year worldwide "expensive"? It's also just an average based on the country. Richer countries would pay more than poor countries because they tend to have more people and more GDP. It's much cheaper than forcing a woman to have the kid that could have been prevented with a simple vastectomy. Vasectomies are cheaper, safer, and easier than a pregnancy. If we can tell a woman, "You must pay $4000 to have a kid because the alternative is killing them", then we can tell people "You must pay $500 for the vastectomy in taxes because the alternative is killing a baby". There are also so many other benefits besides abortion elimination that are present with this policy, so lets implement it.
-->
@Alec
Wow, great idea! Just like the China one child policy! Don’t have kids, or we will brutally murder them. That is totally a libertarian concept, not tyrannical or dictator-like....
-->
@Alec
In fact, 26% of couples are doing the once a week and some even two months according to the doctor involvedSo, 26% of the population will hit that 100 mark in 2 years according to your numbers. If they are having sex every 2 months, they hit that mark in under 17 years.
That is an average, and that's only 26% of the population overall. That still isn't enough numbers. And these stats can vary and there isn't strong data correlating to this. You also have to take into account various other things that decrease. Wanted pregnancies and such
Plan B is supposed to be used as a last resort in case the condom is ineffective at performing itself, it should not be used every time sexual intercourse is done upon someone. A condom is there to protect 99% of the timeNot all women use Plan B when they have to, so we can't depend on that.
Then we have to educate them, or they can be idiotic. It is their fault. The options are there for them to proceed by getting Plan B versus an abortion. They need to be mature and do it. If they don't, they deserve to have a baby when options are available. The status quo allows a plan to resolve. It is a human's job to execute it. If they don't, its their fault. The government does not need to get involved
It's mandatory in 24 states and required by lawHave abortions been eliminated from these states? No. Because sex ed isin't 100% effective. It can be used in addition to my policy though.
While don't you just legalize it in every state so more people are educated lol. That fixes this imaginary problem
The government then has to do the followingA) Pay the doctorsB) Upgrade equipmentC) Buy facilitiesD) Direct people to go and do this if it is a LAWI think the doctor payment is what the $1000 fee would cost. Equipment doesn't have to be upgraded, only made more numerous. Facilities could be bought, and when this project ends, they could be sold at a profit, How is bullet point D a problem?
No, you have to pay doctors more than a minimal fee if they are going to perform surgery and they cost a lot. The doctor needs to get paid.
Equipment needs to involve in order for safer practice. Dentists, eye doctors, and others use more evolving equipment to make it safer and more accurate. The same will need to be done with this. It will cost a lot of money and the government can't buy this.
These facilities will sell lower based on the market and the principle of buying property. That is how the economy works. This will be a lose lose
Effective campaigning is key, or else no one will do this, and that will cost money
Equipment needs to involve in order for safer practice. Dentists, eye doctors, and others use more evolving equipment to make it safer and more accurate. The same will need to be done with this. It will cost a lot of money and the government can't buy this.
These facilities will sell lower based on the market and the principle of buying property. That is how the economy works. This will be a lose lose
Effective campaigning is key, or else no one will do this, and that will cost money
Universal health care would be able to solve all of this, and if you simply redirected the funds here to UHC, then this would not be a problem, and could be a policy you can include giving more access to everyoneI'd be fine with adding this policy on to UHC/Medicare for all.
But instead of this policy being required, merge it for UHC
China's military is rapidly growing despite our spending 2x.As of right now, their military spending isn't that high. When it becomes comparable to NATO's military spending, then we can increase our spending. As of right now, we don't need a military 5x the size of China's.
Yet they are very close behind us catching up quicker and quicker. The only way to stop them is to keep spending where we at now, so we can secure our spot
They are competitive with us now within 30 years of time from a modern standpoint. They also have more troops, and near equal in everything. War in China would destroy us, and we need to defend against them, and not expose ourselves as vulnerable. Then if NATO happens to join, it's WWIII, idiotic.If NATO joins, then it would help the US beat China. Also, if this becomes a mandatory policy worldwide, then it would weaken China because they wouldn't reproduce anymore since the Chinese couldn't afford to pay the huge reversal fee that has to be paid ever time before they have a kid. If China's not reproducing anymore, it makes them dependant on labor from other countries that can afford the reversal fee, making them have to abandon communism in order to attract western migrants; the only people who can afford this process. The existing Chinese benefit because they could have as much sex as they want and not get the girl pregnant. At the same time, it forces China to abandon communism if they wish to attract migrants from around the world.
Then here is the problem, Russia and NK joins in, along with Iran. Turkey leaves NATO and joins Russia and then boom, a World War started and we all die. Simple as ABC. Chain reaction
Not only that, but accidents do happen no matter what.After the vasectomy is 2 months old (or the guy ejactulates 20x, whichever is done first, with some guys going further for safety), they could have unprotected sex without even the slightest risk of unwanted pregnancy. The effectiveness rate would be 100%.
Yea but there is that SLIGHT risk that it may happen. Again, that's why Plan B is in effect, so that means that instead of wasting money, you can just buy Plan B
You are forming number without any logic or reasoning.https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide states that 56 million abortions happen per year worldwide, so I was close. THe cite states:
Wasn't talking about abortion numbers
During 2010–2014, an estimated 56 million induced abortions occurred each year worldwide.Virtually all of these abortions can be eliminated if this policy goes into effect, preventing tens of millions of deaths annually.
What? This would take over 17 years to implement and get fully done, and people can bypass this too, and abortions still exist. Just using the methods in place effectively and being responsible solves this
We would still have abortionsHow so?
Above
Not to mention having the government deciding what we do with our bodies is an extremely poor attempt at creating a Utopian society that has an authoritarian leader. These leaders fail. Look at Hitler for example. His authoritarian style with his "Utopian society," failed miserably
-->
@bmdrocks21
It's drastically different from China's one child policy. You can still have kids, you just need to pay for a reversal vastectomy every time you want a kid. You claim that it would result in a loss of life. If anything, my policy prevents life from being killed since it prevents unintended pregnancies, and therefore abortions.Just like the China one child policy! Don’t have kids, or we will brutally murder them.
That is totally a libertarian concept
Given that it provides freedom for the unborn by preventing them from existing and therefore, preventing their deaths, I'd say it's libertarian. It also liberates the woman from unintended pregnancy once implemented. It frees people up to do sex without the fear of unwanted pregnancy.
-->
@Alec
It's drastically different from China's one child policy. You can still have kids, you just need to pay for a reversal vastectomy every time you want a kid. You claim that it would result in a loss of life. If anything, my policy prevents life from being killed since it prevents unintended pregnancies, and therefore abortions.
But if they neglect your laws and have kids, you kill them. I don't see how you are going to impose this on other countries peacefully. Seeing good old trustworthy America snipping your pecker. They will especially trust us after the syphilis experiments we had in Guatemala!
Given that it provides freedom for the unborn by preventing them from existing and therefore, preventing their deaths, I'd say it's libertarian. It also liberates the woman from unintended pregnancy once implemented. It frees people up to do sex without the fear of unwanted pregnancy.
Um, false.
Taxing- not libertarian.
Forcing people to do things with their bodies (you know, the whole reason the Libertarian party supports abortion)- not libertarian.
Condoms + pulling out before the money shot = success.
To be clear Alec, most people don't dislike the fact that you are a hardcore authoritarian conservative nearly as much as they dislike the fact that you lie about being a hardcore authoritarian conservative.
I want you to take this test and post your score in this thread:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
My score has changed quite a bit
Got left/right: 2.5
Libertarian/authoritarian:3.23
used to be further right and authoritarian
What is yours?
Libertarian/authoritarian: 3.23
I don't believe this for a second. Do you mind taking it again and transcribing all your answers here?
-->
@Alec
I think this idea of yours is as loony as your invade Africa idea.
Every time I think you're being tongue in cheek, you say something that makes it seem as if you actually believe these loony ideas. Really?