You should not be allowed to get pregnant unless you go through a court proceeding?

Question

When girls are born, they should have a chip implanted in them that keeps them from being able to become prego. If she decided later on in life that she wants to have kids then she and the prospective father would have to go through something similiar to a court proceeding at which point a judge/jury would decide whether or not to allow the pregnancy. This would do away with teen pregnancies, trailer trash having kids, and it would save us money becasue we wouldn't be supporting Mary Joe Sue and her illegitimate 7 kids. What do you think about this??

Answer 1

I think thats a terrible idea. First, reproductive rights should never, ever, become a buracratic agenda. And who would decide who has the right to breed? Would a Christian judge restrict it to only other Christians? A lot of civilizations greatest minds have come from humble beginnings. Lance Armstrongs' mother was a single teenager, so was Shaq's, as well as a lot of genius' and great humanitarians. A wealthy, educated family produced George "Whoo-hoo, killin' ragheads" Bush, so that seems to demonstrate that good finances and nuclear families don't have a monopoly on good genes. There will always be "trailer trash". It doesnt take money or a house to be a good person. It takes integrity and character. I've dated a lot of guys who looked good on paper, but were total douchbags, and dated guys who wern't as "legit" yet were kind, honest and just. YOu cant mandate ethics, or manipulate genetic perfection. I mean, how far do you think we should take it? Set an age limit? If you have a genetic disorder, should you be eliminated? Since you trust the court system so much, maybe we should just turn our babies over to the government, and let them be raised like cattle?
BTW, seems kinda sexist to put it just women. Maybe infant boys should get micro-chipped as well.

Answer 2

Eventually we will have to deal with population control issues in some way, as we are probably close to the carrying capacity of this planet. But I am surprised you would ask such a question in such a terrible way, if you are an American and value our Constitutional freedoms. I would think the first line of defense against unwanted kids would be to educate people about birth control and make it a widely available option. What you're talking about is a kind of modern high-tech chastity belt chip. Why not implant the chip in men instead of women? Another answer would be to make it tougher for people to remain on welfare or outside of the system for generations. It would require better education for all people. I have a problem with the state deciding who gets to reproduce and who doesn't. It's a Fascist idea and easily corrupted. What is your goal here? To insult people, to vent your frustration or to try to find some solutions to our problems? In China for a while the state decided who could have children. I think the system didn't work and I don't want to live in either a Fascist or a Communist dictatorship (there is little difference between them.) What should the goal be - better quality of life for all people or just a few? What if you weren't one of those selected to reproduce? Would you agree to that?

Answer 3

I have always thought the same thing but it does go against everything American like FREEDOM OF CHOICE which as a women I would be pissed off to have someone telling me no sorry a kid is not for you right now
Side note:
you said something about teen moms and I had my son when I was 3 months from 18 his dad suck around until a couple years ago but was never any help I have never been on welfare or lived in a trailer I work in doc office and support myself and my son just fine but I totally agree w/the bullsh*t of our tax money going to someone who has not learned what birth control is or how to not have sex my son is 7 and I have no others I know I can only support us and yes it is hard but if I can do it anyone can :)

Answer 4

I agree that some people just should not have children but that is a little extreem my sister is 18 and has a three yr old and a 5 mo old she is the best mother i have ever met i am 21 and have a 2 yr old and a 8 mo old and my fiance and i support them. But there are adults i know in there thirties and they would rather be out partying and leave there children with whoever so it is not just teens. And as far as teen pregnancy goes the parents need to realize sex is a natural thing and it is not something you should scold or lecture about it should be talked out.

Answer 5

no No NO, not to become pregnant. BUT TO HAVE SEX! The purpose of sex is NOT pleasure, but procreation. They should stop all people, yes even MEN that aren't mature enough to have sex, therefore stopping unwanted pregnancies.

As for me, I got pregnant when I was 17, and I now have 2 children (19 years old). Both of my pregnancies were planned. Their father and I were going to get married after he came back from Iraq, but guess what asshole, he was killed in January. I wouldn't trade my kids for the world, they make my life happy. I don't live in a trailer, but you might consider me white trash, kuz I don't have a lot of money, and my car is ghetto. I really don't care. Because talk all the crap you want, if he wouldn't have died for all of you to say these kinds of things, we wouldn't be talking about this right now, would we?

You act like you're uneducated and ignorant. I, on the other hand, am not.

Answer 6

Good idea, except that why is it always the woman that is expected to be the responsible one? It is men who end up being dead-beat dads. Women almost always have to deal with the aftermath. What we need to do is sterilise all the men on the planet. Finding even one who will be a decent human being, let alone father, will be a challenge, but it should be done for the good of humanity.

P.S. you are not the first who has thought of this. I've heard that in the US they were thinking about offering monetary incentives to women to get norplant (it's a birth control implant that lasts 5 years). I think they decided that it was unethical - but it was discussed.

P.P.S. Primemender5: interesting thought about putting bc in our food! It IS in our food, since it's in our water supply. Most cities water treatment faciilities do not remove the chemicals from the water, which includes all of the pharmaceuticals we consume. A huge amount of estrogen is dumped back into the water supply bound to glucose, and is taken up by the fish, who are eaten by us! Scary world, isn't it?

Answer 7

Do you live in America? Do you see what a step back this? On a slippery slope such as this the next thing is take away the vote and right to own property from women. I would like to believe that uneducated attitudes such as this are thing of the past but was horrified to see the number of people that actually considered it in the other answers. I can only hope that youth plays a part in this because that can be cured by education and time.

Answer 8

Why girls??? (Most) Males are fertile EVERY day of their lives and women are fertile what, three days out of every month, and THEY're the ones who should have a chip implanted? Why not put some sort of chip in men which keeps the sperm from entering the ejaculate until it's deemed okay for them to have a kid?

I do get your point, though. We need a license to drive, get married (and that doesn't even say anything other than you filed the right paperwork, not that you're "fit" to be married), fish, hunt, build, etc. but anyone can have a child. (Of course, it seems like many (I'm not saying all!) of the most fertile people are those who can't afford kids, don't want them, etc. but many of the people who do want kids can't have them for various reasons...).

Answer 9

I agree with you in principal and understand where you are coming from. It kills me to see people on welfare buying steaks with their food stamps, knowing it's my tax dollars.

However we do live in America where freedom is very important. If you start delegating who and who cannot reproduce what will be next?

I think as an alternative we stop providing aid to these people and stop rewarding them with more money each time they have a child. I think welfare should only be used when a married couple loses employment through no fault of their own, and even then should be limited to 6 months. I think if a child is born out of wedlock it should be the responsibility of the parent and whatever family or friends are willing to help out. I think if we take away all the free assistance maybe they would think twice.

Answer 10

I feel your answer is stupid and never would happen. If society was so concerned about teen pregnancies their parents would be more involved in the teens life for one and they would start doing tubilizations at younger ages. State of wisconsin will not give a tubal unless you are of the age 25 or have had three children. just because in your eyes someone is not fit to be a parent dont mean that they are unable to concieve unless they are told that they can by a court. hell there are alot of couples in america that cant concieve their own child and are happy that someone was willing to give them the one thing that they have always wanted in their lives.