Do you believe a woman should be able to be voluntarily sterilized in her teens/early twenties? Currently it is very difficult for a woman to get such a procedure unless she already has children as "she'll likely regret it" True or not on that statement, I'm curious why no noise gets made about that, with very much noise being made right now about her body her choice in regards to abortion. It's an especially intriguing question when you consider pretty much anywhere in the US a guy can sign up for a vasectomy at about any age past 18 with no questions asked, get it done outpatient, and that's that.Besides menopause or a hysterectomy the only 100% method.
Yes
No
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Updates
1 y
I find it interesting at this point that 4 women, and 31 men responded. It's only odd to me because in married couples 13.1% of men and 21.1% of women are sterilized through vasectomy or tubal. Most tubals are done within 48 hours of child birth, according to pubmed. Anyway, I suppose women don't care that much about "her body her choice" is the only conclusion I can draw unless the site is overwhelmingly (8:1) filled by men. Especially since most were in favor.
Should US women without children more easily be able to sterilize themselves as US men are able to?
Sadly, even men get a lot of these "but what about your future wife" bullshit questions, too.
It should be dramatically easier to get sterilized.
I'm Canadian, and while I geared myself up for a fight assuming it'd be similar for me as for an American woman, my GP got me a referral after one visit. And the Gynecologist was very professional, friendly, and had me set after my first visit with her.
I had to tell my (young male Asian) doctor that "Doc, if someone wants a kid, they're not my partner". And that I would much rather regret NOT having kids than regret HAVING them.
Those arguments, alongside my "I have a binder of reasons at the ready" approach, I think helped me push through without much issue.
It should be easier in general for all people to have access to healthcare that will help them be comfortable in their bodies. Whether that's abortions, sterilizations, fertility treatments, or reassignment surgeries.
While I understand the reasoning of "let's make sure", most GPs and institutions - especially in the US - go so far as to make "making sure" more of a "let's convince you otherwise".
You'd think it would be the opposite in the US as we're private parties paying for services. We have the right to shut up, pay our insurance and co-pay for whatever services they feel like giving. I feel that one especially with epilepsy, find a medicine that works well "we want to put you on this one now, so, that's happening"
Oof, that sucks. Yeah, despite Canada having mostly universal healthcare, our prescriptions generally are covered by private insurance unless you go through gov't programs.
I had to pay a premium for the birth control I was on before my sterilization - we'd tried generic brands, but I reacted terribly to them.
I do wish insurance companies were less of a mob scam but they're fuckin scammy and I hate the entire industry.
At least now I know I ought to just use every available dollar at every available turn.
... Why would anyone regret having kids? People regret not raising their own kids if they gave them up for adoption, or doing it poorly, but having them? That is unthinkable.
@monotprise Man, you'd better have a talk with my mother. But, y'know, bring tissues and have a therapist appointment scheduled for after. You'll see what regretting having children looks like.
It looks like abuse, neglect, narcissism, suicidal threats leveled at a 12 year old, and financial abuse.
Unfortunately, people who don't want kids but have them - and regret it; German and US study 7-18% of parents regret having kids.
It's just what happens. Not everyone is ready for children. And childbirth itself is a very dangerous and deadly activity. Fortunately it is mitigated by modern medicine, but it still wrecks the mother's body.
And I've yet to meet a new parent who doesn't at least wish for a bit more sleep and time in a day.
If women (who do not want children) want to get sterilized, it’s their choice which must be respected. What the person does with their body should be of no concern to others.
Many cases of unwanted pregnancies can be avoided too. Also, a lot of people are choosing not to have kids these days. Instead of getting abortions, they could undergo this procedure if they feel like they do not want kids in the future.
A lot of men get “He will likely regret it” too. This is a free country. People should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies as long as they aren’t harming anyone.
This right here. Many people get tattoos they regret, I'm libertarian in my beliefs, and everything you said checks out 100%. I did not have that clarity of mind at your age though lol
If they are firm in their decision, I think we should respect that. The government or any other authorities should not have any say in what people do with their bodies.
I just gotta say it's up to what the girl thinks is best as it's something she's gotta live with forever.
What most people barely acknowledge is that some chicks out there don't want to have children and so this would secure their fear of getting pregnant MORE so than us guys using condoms or pulling out every time we root chicks or expecting girls to take the pill all the time to avoid pregnancy.
As long as sterilisation is not forced on young girls and women than I believe sterilisation should be a broader option.
I don't think sterilization should ever be forced, that would be eugenics. Rather there's a severe disconnect. A person can become a transformer when they're not an adult which is a life long decision. There's huge controversy over abortion right now (has been for a while), is it a life, when is it a life, what should they be allowed to do? My view is if you have the cash, it's legal, and you pay the doctor, they do the work if they can. Hell, we wouldn't have the opioid crises if the DEA let them write prescriptions like they want, but that's a whole different thing.
From your opinion and another one I have an eerie feeling that young people are getting smarter... like more so than when I was at your age.
My guess is that doctors are afraid of performing tubal ligation on women below a certain age, because of the fear of lawsuits later on. Just from the way SOME people think, I can picture someone saying something like, "Yeah but I didn't know what I was doing at that age and now I want kids and it is the doctor's fault for doing the procedure"... That kind of nonsense does happen too.
I DO know one lady who got a tubal ligation at the age of 26, but that was over 20 years ago. Perhaps it was easier then?
I also know a lady who had her 18 year old daughter get a tubal ligation, but she already had a history of mental illness and hospitalizations before then. She said that they "had to fill out a lot of paperwork"... The reasoning was that there was no way she would be able to handle raising a child.
The 26 year old had no kids, and she did not want any. I remember about 5 years after that, she did have some fear that she might actually want a kid some day, but that was short lived and I never heard her bring that up again. // As far as whether or not it was difficult for her to get the tubal ligation at that age, I doubt it. I never heard her say that it was a hassle. But then again, this was over 20 years ago. I'm sure things have changed.
Then it's probably a provider by provider thing. I'd imagine some of the big providers have some rules set in stone, and maybe the smaller ones are more flexible.
Yes I certainly think so and the restrictions/difficulties to get them are very frustrating. I have even thought about getting sterilized and I'm only 24. If more women are able to get sterilized then there would be less unwanted pregnancies and less need for abortions. I would be glad to see less and less women getting abortions.
I'm of the same opinion, though I want more kids, and for my relationships to produce babies, not everyone wants that. I don't get allowing abortion but restricting sterilizations. If it is purely about increasing population and birth control and abortions are restricted, that would make sense. Same with not caring and leaving both unrestricted, as they're both elective procedures.
Otherwise it's just a blatant misdirection game from both sides. For some reason "every sperm is sacred" from monty python is playing in my head now lol
@razelove I'm against abortion because of how I view it. I would breathe so much easier knowing our society gave men and women free sterilizations and for women free IUDs and having birth control 100% covered by insurance. I don't like abortion not because I want to control anyone but because I view the unborn as still children. That's as far as it goes for me. I would be happy if there was a way to remove the fetus from the woman and allow it to continue growth in an artificial womb where the mother can sign off on it and not have to worry about any responsibility after. I hope this becomes a possibility someday so it pretty much removes unethical abortions and abortions can be strictly for use of saving a woman's life and to prevent various medical complications.
@t-8900 According to this 10 years, but that was 3 years ago, so it's probably much closer to completion. Even if it was cost effective I doubt it would be used though. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-50056405
@razelove you never know what the future holds. Might even be a positive thing for society because I can see what the population control people would think. But even so it's humane and might even be better for family planning for some folks tbh
@t-8900 I agree 100%, and most people haven't read a brave new world to have that fear, I don't see it being discarded on moral grounds as well, but becoming a niche product for women with fertility issues, or premature babies. I am pretty cynical though, so maybe it could play out in a positive direction, won't deny that.
@monorprise What are you talking about? Tubal ligation should be a choice for women who know they never want children. If they can easily have access to this contraceptive then there will be less unplanned pregnancies and they won't need to get abortions. It shouldn't be required for a woman to get a tubal ligation though if she knows she wants children at some point. That's all I'm saying.
@monorprise A contraceptive is different from taking poison pills to end your life so don't even bother comparing the two. Whether people decide to have children or not is their decision. You can't force that decision on anyone.
@monorprise Being dead is different from being sterile. A good number of people have fertility issues through no choice of their own. Would you consider them effectively dead as well?
@razelove I wouldn't but nature would, although that is changing for us humans with modern technology. With current research it is now possible to artificially create new reproductive cells.
Still just because you can bring someone back to life or replace their lost limb is not a reason to be willing to kill or cripple them.
I do not believe in abortion as a means of birth control.
Which is what it is. A quick fix to an inconvenience.
There are 16 different means of contraception.
If i was the kind of guy to be hooking up constantly I'd get snipped and have consent forms ready.
With the male , birth control, pill 💊 it'll even things out a bit,
But yea if a woman wants to be living that lifestyle and dosnt want kids ever get snipped it's a free country. And it dosnt involve taking an innocent life.
I agree for the most part, but as a guy a valid method of birth control for hooking up is simply a fake name rather than anything more complicated. I mean, it is no strings attached, or that's the idea at least. Business cards and a prepaid phone take care of that.
It's a lifestyle I won't live again, but it's better to be sure you can make a clean break with phases of your life like that, crime, or whatever.
Primarily access to tubal sterilization is an age requirement. In a few countries, the numbe of children is a factor, and their may be other requirements. The minimum age ranges from 18 to 30, depending on the country. In a few countries men have a lower minimum age. Refer to:
Technically in the US a woman could get sterilized at 18 the same as a man, more likely she'll have a difficult time finding a provider who will before age 30 unless she has popped out a kid already. I'm not going into the dynamics of other countries as not only am I unfamiliar with them, but do find it odd that abortion is pushed so hard, but at the same time denial of a birth control that has zero maintenance and a very low failure rate doesn't get much light.
It's like the pieces just aren't lining up, you know? Or at least that's how it feels to me.
@razelove As a rule we should be reluctant to preform any elective and non-reversible procedure.
The government choose the age of 18 as the age of adulthood not because that is when your mature, your brain does not finish developing physically until about 25 and mentally perhaps even longer.
But because that is the age the military needed to recruit solders at, in part for the same reason. Its a lot harder to convince someone over the age of 25 to charge a machine gun nest than someone under it. Likewise its a lot easier to convince someone under the age of 25 to permanently cripple themselfs with such a procedure than under it.
The fact that the man's procedure can be fixed soo much more easily is the key factor here.
Our culture is already glaringly hypocritical with societies expectations, concerning moral, and ethical responsibilities as far as comparing gender roles is concerned. Women have every right in the world to have the same control of their reproductive health as men.
It should be harder to get men sterilized too. Unless they've done something to warrant sterilization, such as being serious sex offenders or routine deadbeats, then men shouldn't be seeking vasectomies until they're in their late 30s or early 40s.
The idea that men never regret being sterilized is off. Just as is the idea that men who try to have children and can't are somehow always happy they didn't succeed.
I agree that the numbers for guys are suspicious. Especially failures of vasectomies more in the 2nd year rather than the first... even the NIH study suspected a different father... but if a guy wants to drink it away and say everything is fine, no one's going to stop him. I mean, I wouldn't go to a "true" study with sodium pentothal and water boarding for accurate answers myself.
The reason it isn't is because women have sued and won large judgments against doctors who performed sterilizations that the woman requested and paid for when she later changed her mind. There would need to be laws which made doctors exempt from such lawsuits, and I don't see that happening.
Yeah, I was reading somewhere that the cost of malpractice insurance plus redundant testing to cover asses is like 54 billion a year, 2.5% of hospital costs, a little more than the power bill. That doesn't include any costs of settlements or payouts as those aren't public record.
I know it's like 1/5 women have regret, and 1/50 men when sterilized. I'd like it if the medical community had their asses covered more, and you could buy what you want with money from them, like a forehead nipple or whatever.
I would be FAR more in favor of a complete and total ban on abortions alongside allowing elective sterilization surgery as well as holding runaway fathers accountable than the clusterf*CK of degeneracy and irresponsible excuse-making policies propogated in this country today.
I mean it would certainly add to the population decline crisis (the US is only increasing because of immigration), but whatever.
Well, it isn't a crises yet, we aren't paying close attention to it or strongly encouraging reproduction yet, the question on my mind is when it does become a crises will mexico swallow the us, or will the us swallow mexico with whatever identity it has at that time? Will the distinction matter? lol
It isn't like there's an easy fix either, Japan has acknowledged their problem of accelerated declining birthrate and searched for solutions for a while now. If your people who make babies make less of them, and many none at all, you can't put them together like cows or horses and breed them. Well, you could, but your society would collapse all the same.
Non-reversibility is a major concern. The other concern is civic responsibility, It is your duty to have children if you can to carry on not only your family but larger sociality. This is as basic as working to support both. Any culture that indulges individuals who refuse to do either is doomed to collapse and failure.
Theses are the laws of nature, man cannot alter them, we can only ignore them at our own destruction.
I hear you, but if we're going to walk on this road of "people aren't animals" green new deal, push for abortion hard, why not be consistent? I agree that our population will implode sooner or later. It happens to most countries who as you pointed out focus on the individual more than the collective and forget that we are animals at our root.
Look at the accelerating decline of Japan's population, as they're most popular for that, really it's any country that becomes "developed" and starts to step off the path of reproducing enough to replace or surpass their previous generation.
I think your key word there is survive. Hard times make hard people. Immigrants don't just come here, they come here and make babies, then their kids have kids. The irony of wanting to provide a better life for your kids, and they provide a better one for theirs is at some point of having little to no pressure they won't worry about survival and reproduction.
Yes it's her choice but she should be an adult at least. 18 even though people are still basically kids till their mid twenties. But what can ya do? That's there choice and they may come to regret it. However it's far better and less an evil than abortion. Just my opinion anyways.
Mine as well, out of choice A and choice B, choice A will stop them from making more of themselves. Choice B will lead them to get knocked up again out of guilt. Every girl I've known who got an abortion wanted to get knocked up after. Most of the time by the same guy who had knocked them up before. This world truly confuses me.
I mean they're making a choice and if they don't like what happens because of their choice well then I guess they shouldn't have made that choice
Though I feel like you should at least be a legal adult first because teenagers aren't exactly known for making intelligent choices and trusting a teenager's parents is also just dumb because I mean a lot of teenagers don't have trustworthy parents
Agreed, I feel the same about people being able to become transformers, puberty blockers and stuff like that are straight evil. No one had a smooth, exciting, and happy puberty lol Wait until you're an adult to make permanent body altering decisions, then have the freedom to do as much silliness in a serious manner as you want to engage in.
I voted yes, because if a woman is that stupid and self hating it serves the greater good for her to remove herself from the gene pool. It is overwhelingly those on the left who do such things. It also serves the greater good when leftards choose to not pass on their genes.
I dont really know much about it but I would imagine the difference is due to it not being reversible?
People can change a lot between 20 and 40, it seems to me that if something is possible but somewhat difficult then only people who are really certain will proceed. so maybe its in a good place?
If this really is a problem then I hope it gets fixed but its not something i know or care a lot about and suspect that people just like complaining about things.
I normally wouldn't care too much either, but with how much people are yelling at each other, throwing fire bombs, rioting, and issuing death threats, threatening civil war, etc. over the possibility of restriction on abortion in some regions, the her body her choice argument is one I got interested in, and why it only seems to matter on trending topics like abortion and metoo.
Personally I only think it's a problem because of inconsistency, and if those people want to remove themselves from the gene pool they should be able to, as selectively they can at moments in time. America is very confusing to me right now. It's like if I told you I want to help you and kept robbing your house.
Well the founding principle of the States is that you are all free to do as you please so with the state now telling people they can't have abortions, thats going to be a problem and people throwing firebombs, issuing death threats and starting civil wars is in fact the correct and to be expected reaction.
You should worry more if you dont see that, because that would mean that there are no supporters of freedom remaining in 'the land of the free' and that state tyranny is now absolute.
You know what, I can't find an argument against that. The left feels strongly and is demonstrating their stance. The right feels there is a biased legal system, and say they feel strongly, but have done little to nothing trying to change that outside of TV and radio. They aren't organizing and protesting for what they believe in, or being cohesive. The left is, be it BLM, abortion, what have you.
You get a lot of people who want to talk big on the right, but they aren't doing anything. So, yeah, I can't refute what you're saying at all. Both sides say it's important, but only one side is demonstrating that. I've always thought of it as being easier to be "triggered". It could just be that the right, as a whole, doesn't have a bottom line, or when reached will already be irrelevant.
Well, you're talking about if things made sense and had consistency. I think it's an artificial divide to make us easier to control as well. We're dumb enough to go with it. The only difference I think I have is recognizing that I'm ignorant in so many ways. It seems obvious to realize that there's a shitload you don't know, but many people seem stuck at 16-20 mindset, knowing everything.
If someone has information I don't know, even if I disagree with them, it makes me curious to learn more about it, you know?
What you said about people having information that you dont is a large part of the problem, if not the entire problem.
Everything is so intertwined with everything else that while on the surface you appear to be arguing with someone about thing A their resistance to your arguments may not be anything to do with A. A is just the visible tip of a huge iceberg of ideas and fragments of information or ideologies.
Our world views become who we are too. A religious zealot isn't going to listen to an argument for abortion because they are certain that there is a God who told them that it is murder. That is an obvious example and one of the most easily seen, understood and challenged but even then it won't make any difference because that person has already decided that fiction is fact, nothing you could ever say would change their mind.
Even with a more open minded person it is going to be difficult to challenge their core beliefs if they are some how in error because finding the error in their thinking is like looking for a needle in a haystack and you can't even see the haystack.
Personally I strongly believe that the world is controlled in large part by some shadowy organisation.
Recently there was a claim made by the media that there was a shooting in I think it was a New York city train station? Personally i think that is bullshit, I dont believe that that happened. I dont even have much evidence to support the position and haven't particularly looked into it but I would have a hard time accepting any evidence presented to me claiming it was real because of my preconcieved ideas and world view.
I still consider myself to be pretty open minded and someone who's ideas are based in reality, I care about the truth but if even someone like me is clearly dogmatic then what hope is there for anyone with a strong religious background or who is under social pressure to conform to an ideology etc?
This is why we are all so easily enslaved, we will never agree, never put aside our differences and fight our common enemy.
Good point, no man can understand the lifelong trauma a woman must endure after that kind of experience. Society must be supportive of a women's right to choose. Not every pregnancy is an act of love. There's also women who suffer medical issues which threatens a woman's life if she carries to the point of the fetus becoming viable outside the womb.
The right answer is no. If one man is sterilized then easily another man can make his wife pregnant. But if a woman is sterilized no all men on world can make her pregnant. So it's a much more severe scenario if a woman is stetilized Society must be protected from this sterilization. It reduces gene variability of the world.
That is food for thought, on my end I'd rather have consistency, like either our policy makers encourage making babies, discourage it, or don't care. A lot would have to change rapidly for polygamy to become socially acceptable. I've always gotten a lot of stares whenever I have two women hanging onto me.
I mean, logically, what you're saying makes sense, putting such an idea into practice is more difficult. Like I can pull more women telling them I'm cheating on my wife rather than that she knows and is open to it. People are funny creatures. I do wonder why polygamy is still illegal on that note though.
The problem is female sterilization is a vastly more complicated procedure and, more importantly, it's not reversible. So it makes some sense they would take a lot of precautions to ensure it won't be regretted.
That generally goes the same with vasectomies, and success or failure of a reversal depends on luck and the method used to begin with. Anyway, I figure people should be free to make decisions they'll regret later, especially if they'll pay with cash.
Contrary to popularly held beliefs, the success rates of a vasectomy reversal do not suddenly decline after 10 years. Dr. Bastuba has successfully reversed vasectomies with patients up to 40 years following a vasectomy, with pregnancy occurring as early as a few months post reversal. As with all extremely specialized and technical procedures, the best results for vasectomy reversal are obtained by surgeons with extensive training and a wealth of experience.
@Subarugirl Well, it's not a worry of mine regardless as I'm not getting clipped. You're also derailing, give an opinion. Currently all I'm hearing is how men have it better, and you're so sorely mistreated. Make an opinion about it instead of highjacking someone else's thread like a leech.
She had a point. It was parallel to mine but not unrelated. In that they are both choices that have far greater consequence to women than to men, just due to their physiology. In a civilized world it thus makes sense that men should try help alleviate those consequences when possible instead of adding to them. This is also true for any choices that come up that place disproportionate burden on men, obviously. Getting wrapped up in the tiny things one is asked to do to make things easier on women while ignoring all the things women routinely do for men, just because women aren't actually given a choice in the matter, is an imbalance.
What would an ideal civilization look like from your perspective? I'm curious, because beyond left, right, libertarian, whatever, we all have our unique ideals and some of our core beliefs get close to one ideology or another, and it's what we get behind more because of momentum.
You seem to have your ideals and ideology more hashed out.
Oh, i dont have them hashed out at all, lol. I suppose the overarching theme would just be a permanent end to bullying. And this would require that every single bully is stood up to by civilization, no matter how much of an outsider the bully's victim is. Not by spite or vengeance but by including the bully so they become too inundated with the machinations of civilized society to be a bully anymore - bullies ultimately believe they have nothing to lose and so my solution would be to give them something to lose, as long as they are caught before they have the chance to do any real damage. For all the flack inclusivity gets as being "woke" or whatever, one thing it definitely does is make those included highly aware that they are being watched by everyone else who is included.
But it is all kind of an abstract pie-in-the-sky ideal. I don't know how to get us there. I don't know how sustainable it would be once there. I only know that we have a lot of people looking for work and a lot of work that needs to be done when it comes to making the world more civilized. Seems a natural fit to task half that population with teaching the simple concept that it is enough of a contribution to acknowledge that no contribution is insignificant.
Are you talking about actual bullying, like beatings, or online bullying? I agree that actual bullying should, or should have been taken more seriously (I don't know how it is now). I was a small skinny guy before my growth spurt, got bullied, and became really violent from it. Wound up having to see a therapist after someone shot a paperclip at me, I started choking him and slamming his head into the ground in the middle of class. To be honest I probably would have killed him if I wasn't pulled off as he had already lost consciousness. Like Nietzsche said, gaze long enough into the abyss, and the abyss gazes back into you. I sent a fair number of people to the hospital by "reacting" a little too strongly. Granted I got beat down plenty myself, my Italian nose started out looking roman, but now it's a little more crooked lol
What people said never got to me though. I don't think online bullying is bullying, though you could use it as a litmus test to see if it will escalate. To do otherwise would deprive people of freedom of speech, and they're free to be jackasses. The online trail never goes away, so a pattern like that is restrictive later in life when people start looking at hiring, promotions and what not.
I'd say that having immediate results with something like that is pie in the sky. You shouldn't stop people from saying hurtful things, the other person can just block them. And in real life people will criticize you and it's something you need to learn to deal with in whatever way works for you. Getting there with the consequences is already happening as people are going farther and farther back in online history with companies when considering if an employee matches up with their ideals and the possibility of causing litigation.
I mean all bullying but of course that would require an objective definition of what bullying is. "Saying hurtful things" is not bullying. Even punching someone in the face is not bullying. It all depends on context. What events led up to the behavior and what were they trying to accomplish. This is why my proposed response to bullying isn't to just be a more effective bully but to include the bully. The intent is to address the reasons for bullying instead of stamping down on the symptoms. Thus someone who isn't bullying but only appears to be is unaffected by the response. I don't actually know that the response I propose would accomplish that aim, but it is the aim nontheless.
That's actually a very noble goal. I was expecting you to spew out some cyberbullying nonsense, but your approach makes sense. At some point I was reacting to being picked on and hit, then over reacting, then seeking problems before they could start. Probably at the point I was tall and strong rather than small and weak I was perceived, or was, a bully rather than trying to stop it happening to me. I could go on, but I won't, it would just be boring and violent.
I will say that therapy was nonsense, but the therapist I met was on spot. I didn't want to talk, he just wanted to help, so he told me one day "well, you can keep being an asshole, but at least be likable, our time's up". When we left he hopped into a convertible with a smoking hot woman driving, next session I was like, teach me sensei lol
Yeah, again it's a goal not a path. I don't even know for sure that it would mean anything. The idea is to weed out the attitude of a bully early on. Because while physical bullies create the most graphic images there is one type of bully that is the current worst. We don't worry so much about lions and tigers anymore. We have transcended the physical food chain and now have established a mental one. And our apex predator is liars. They lure in vulnerable attention spans with their charm and eat the free will of their victims, making it their own. They are the ones encouraging people to be bullies in the first place. They always ensure they are the first in line to snatch up any advancement made by civilization and if there is not enough left over for anyone else that's just too bad.
There is an expression "I'd rather be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war." This is a perfect encapsulation of it. No one would prefer to be in a war, be they warrior or otherwise. And as most wars are over food there will be fewer wars with more gardeners. But the liars want to feel superior not by merit but because their spoken words bullied the reality they want into existence. So they take the food and discourage people from being gardeners through faux wisdom like 'I'd rather be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.' It is bullying beyond merely punching someone in the face. You can heal from that. You can't heal from entire generation being tricked into marching humanity in the wrong direction. It's worse than stealing money. It's worse than stealing blood. It's stealing self worth. It's stealing pride. It is, in so many words, stealing civility. And it seems like preventing it should be as simple as just including them early on. But I dunno..
Oof, you're going to need to build an armed organization. Honestly I would have given you MHO if not for how few women replied just from our conversation. If you don't have a shitload of money, I'd recommend going to war. You'll find a lot of people left by the way side of society there. Make friends, build contacts, build a business while you're in to hire those you trust, and you have your organization.
Look up contracts with PMC companies, silent professionals is a good place to start. Get to know war from wherever you can get into there. War isn't so bad, losing is though. Working with a PMC, if it's a bad situation, you won't have back-up. At your age, working out, roiding up, and doing dexadrine to keep up with the 20 year olds is valid. I don't have to, because I'm supply and logistics, if I get hit I'm setting off so many IEDs it looks like a nuke went off. If you're the guy with clean boots and new gear in a foreign country at war, things are just easier.
I'm not into war. War isn't about figuring out how to disagree in a civilized manner. It's specifically about eliminating the people who disagree with you. Self defense is fine and necissary, of course, but there is always going to be some bloodthirsty spirit trying to claim "the best defense is a good offense." The comraderie among brothers in arms is fine but you can get that on a sports team and be more useful. Plus there is the plain fact that in a war it is inevitable that you will have to murder children. And that's not an okay thing to do.
I don't claim any of that self righteous BS, war is a good place to make money and pick up opportunities. Give it a little while. Biden''s presidency has been an abject failure. The one executive power he has to try and sweep that under the rug is the power to mobilize the military. Where the military goes, military funding and mercenaries go.
I could care less if it was Canada. If it pays, and seems like a solid deal with guys I trust, fuck em. Time to invade Ottawa, Hoorah. I would rather not with Mexico though, not because of Mexico itself, but the curiosity of how much of our military would defect when given that order. I remember a guy in boot camp who couldn't speak English, but he could shoot, run, and fight like a champ though. I'd bet dollars to dimes he's an officer now. Perfect PFT, misunderstanding that it's his second language, oh yeah.
Oh, Biden's presidency has been a resounding success by all metrics except optics. Sadly, far right scammers own like two-thirds of the media, so a lot of people have been tricked into thinking not only can we compare the calm normalcy of the Biden administration to the klown kar kleptocracy of Trump, but that the kleptocracy might have actually been better. This is because the owners of right wing misinformation just want the money and are happy to provide the rest of us with whatever fantasy we need to continue giving them that money.
Well, he does seem like a bit of a lost cause. How do you explain to someone that murder isn't okay when they just murder anyone who tries to tell them as much? Its hard to convince anyone that they have wasted their life but all the more so when someone has wasted their life in such a thorough way. There's a need to think that much effort and attention can't have actually been for nothing, and so such people tend to invent meaning then get real mad when they can't find anyone to play along. Fortunately I suppose he has his band of bullies to keep each other feeling like their work is meaningful, thus helping prevent any of them from truly flipping out, but it is inevitable...
of course, but we need proper context first, I suppose there were a number of cases where the person sterilized sued the doctors and made them waste their time with bullshit lawsuits. If that's the case, we should address that first.
I'm with that, like any elective surgery, if you have the money you should be able to do it, and unless the doctor wasn't really a doctor or something, be unable to sue if it turned out exactly the way you expected it to. Regret shouldn't be a valid reason to sue. That's a personal problem.
If that same woman wanted to get breast implants and had the cash there would be no barrier, or a guy wanting to get a surgery to make his dick longer. Both are invasive surgeries of varying complexity and are elective as well. If someone has the money, and the facilities are available, they should be free to make decisions they may regret.
Granted my preference is for a woman I can have kids with, but what other people do with their money shouldn't be my business. We pay our insurance/doctors directly anyway. We're not on a state sponsored system.
I agree with that, but a large percentage of people do not want to further the species. They want "fur babies" and crap like that. Immigrants and their first generation wants to keep having kids. Like between me and my two sisters, I have 4 kids with my wife, 2nd gen American vietnamese, my sister has 1 kid with her husband, and that's the plan there. My youngest sister has a shitload of dogs and other animals like a damned barn in the suburbs with her husband, and doesn't want kids.
I don't think any of them are making bad choices, they're doing what feels right to them, and as a whole, first world countries tend to reproduce less as individual lifestyles go up. At some point our population growth curve is going to look like an inverted pyramid like Japan's, and immigrants will be the only thing keeping us from losing population, both by coming here, and the babies they have.
It's easy to find data on, and is not unique to the US, Japan, Spain, or whatever. Countries get rich, women get to vote, and it all falls apart ;)
Most Helpful Opinions