Search forums

Forums

Export thread

GOP moves to redefine rape...

Jan 30, 2011#1

Iaculus

... in order to save money on abortions. No, seriously.

This is just fucking disgusting.

A majority of House Republicans are taking aim at decreasing federal funding for reproductive health by changing the definition of rape in a newly-filed bill.

Currently, the federal government denies taxpayer monies to be used to pay for abortions, except in cases when pregnancies result from rape or incest or when the pregnancy endangers the woman's life.

However, if the 173 mainly Republican co-sponsors of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" have their way, that would all change. Instead of keeping the 30-year-old definition of rape in federal law, the bill would modify it to "forcible rape," thereby severely limiting the health care choices of millions of American women and their families.

In other words, rape would not be rape unless violence were involved; however, the term "forcible rape" was left undefined, leading some to speculate its meaning since it is also not defined in the federal criminal code or in some state laws.

"This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible," Nick Baumann of Mother Jones wrote recently.

He continued, "For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion."

If the bill becomes law, parents of minors would also be banned from paying for pregnancy termination for their daughters with tax-exempt health savings accounts. Also, the cost of the private health insurance that covered the treatment would not be able to be deducted as a medical expense for tax purposes.

The bill introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) was the second major piece of legislation filed by the Republicans after its attempt to repeal "The Affordable Care Act." Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) hailed Smith's bill as "one of our highest legislative priorities."

“A ban on taxpayer funding of abortions is the will of the people, and it ought to be the will of the land,” Boehner said on the 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade last week.

The bill would also deny other exemptions for rape victims who were drugged or given alcohol, who were mentally limited, and who were date raped.

The incest exception of the bill granted federally-funded abortions only if the woman is under 18.
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said recently that Rep. Smith's bill marked a new beginning for future attacks on women's health. She noted that "a record number" of bills against women's health and family planning are currently filed in state legislatures.

"In fact, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) plans to introduce a bill that would strip Planned Parenthood of all Title X family planning funding, which has made it possible for millions of low-income women to choose and pay for contraception and other basic preventive health care since 1970," she said.

A November 2010 Hart Research poll [PDF] indicated that a majority of American voters who voted for a Republican candidate (71 percent) opposed the Smith bill.

Jan 30, 2011#2

Silver Jelly

WTH?

It doesn't matter if you are pro or anti abortion, this doesn't make any sense.

Jan 30, 2011#3

Hailey Knight

Republicans: the rape party.

My day would've been much improved by me not reading this...

Jan 30, 2011#4

AshburnerX

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
Because abortion is a right, and it should be funded by taxpayer money.

Are you seriously saying that if a woman is raped, she should be forced to give birth to her attacker's child? Are you saying this out of a moral imperative or because you don't want to pay for it?

Jan 30, 2011#5

Krisken

He's saying it to be contrary.

Jan 30, 2011#6

Hailey Knight

He's saying it cause he likes rape.

Jan 30, 2011#7

blotsfan

Abortion should definitely be paid with taxpayer dollars. Abortion saves us money in the long run by preventing criminals from ever committing crimes and getting sent to jail and all that. If a parent wants an abortion, but cant get one because they can't afford it, I doubt that child is going to turn out well. I just wish someone would point this out rather than all the other garbage moral aspects.

Jan 30, 2011#8

Biannoshufu

So, not going to answer the question?

He deleted his remarks!

Does this mean I winz?

Jan 30, 2011#9

Krisken

Which question?

Ah, nevermind, I see now. (Super slow today. More than usual, it seems.)

Jan 30, 2011#10

Krisken

I'm kinda curious myself. Is cost really a factor in your statement?

Jan 30, 2011#11

AshburnerX

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
I'm pretty sure he's suggesting that AshburnerX's question/accusation/frothing at the mouth is worthy of a response.

It's s legitimate question and your taking a stance against what has been considered one of the few exceptions even some pro-lifers are willing to make. I'd simply like to know where your coming from. There are a lot of reasons somebody might be against it and not just because they are a pro-lifer.

Oh, and I don't appreciate your insult. I asked you a question on your stance, I didn't say that you were wrong for having it. Don't be so hostile.

Jan 30, 2011#12

AshburnerX

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
Is abortion, in the case of rape, something that should be provided for the good of the public (like roads, libraries, etc), or does it merely provide additional quality of life for the individual involved (like prosthetics, transportation, etc)?

This is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, though I'd argue that the costs saved over the lifetime of the child aborted would be in the public interest. Children of rape have a much higher chance of being abandoned, put up for adoption, or living in home that receives government benefits. That means there is a very high likelihood that the government is going to paying out a substantial sum over the lifetime of the child in government mandated benefits or social services.

Jan 30, 2011#13

The Lovely Boehner

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
Because abortion is a right, and it should be funded by taxpayer money.

Well-said.

Jan 30, 2011#14

makare

Abortion isn't just a right it is on the very short list of "fundamental rights". That is probably something worth considering.

Jan 30, 2011#15

Dave

It's a legal medical procedure and as such should be paid for just like every other legal medical procedure.

Jan 30, 2011#16

The Lovely Boehner

Dave said:
It's a legal medical procedure and as such should be paid for just like every other legal medical procedure.

Oh, by the government in a single payer healthcare system, I'm glad we agree

Jan 30, 2011#17

Hailey Knight

FLP is an expert in rape, murder, arson, and rape.

Jan 30, 2011#18

Norris

Uh, guys? I think the story here isn't "should abortion be federally funded" as much as it is "should we redefine what qualifies as rape". The answer to the second question is "no". If abortion is federally covered for rape, then there should be no quibbling about how the rape occurred. Rape is rape.

Jan 30, 2011#19

phil

Norris said:
Uh, guys? I think the story here isn't "should abortion be federally funded" as much as it is "should we redefine what qualifies as rape". The answer to the second question is "no". If abortion is federally covered for rape, then there should be no quibbling about how the rape occurred. Rape is rape.

Uuuuhhhhh, no. The question is if we DO redefine rape, will MY taxes go down?

Which is of course yes and a perfectly reasonable reason to do so.

Jan 30, 2011#20

DarkAudit

So where's this post that everyone's quoting?

Jan 30, 2011#21

Krisken

Someone waved a magic wand, I guess.

Jan 30, 2011#22

DarkAudit

(Assuming it was not mod action)

You either stand by what you say or you retract. You don't just erase and hope no one notices.

Jan 31, 2011#23

Covar

escushion said:
FLP is an expert in rape, murder, arson, and rape.

I'll bite. You said rape twice.

Jan 31, 2011#24

strawman

DarkAudit said:
(Assuming it was not mod action)

You either stand by what you say or you retract. You don't just erase and hope no one notices.

I withdrew my posts for personal reasons. It was not my intention to expect no-one to notice.

Jan 31, 2011#25

Biannoshufu

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
I withdrew my posts for personal reasons. It was not my intention to expect no-one to notice.

so what's up with that? I was looking forward to your replies, and not because it was an unusual position to hold, but because you usually have a reasonable point.

Jan 31, 2011#26

strawman

Sorry, you'll have to look for reasonable opposition from some other source.

Jan 31, 2011#27

Dave

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
Sorry, you'll have to look for reasonable opposition from some other source.

Well if we want UNreasonable opposition we got that in spades! We'll just use the GasBandit Signal!

Jan 31, 2011#28

Krisken

Now there's something I never want to see lighting the clouds in my sky.

Jan 31, 2011#29

Chibibar

So if a person is raped but not forcible then that person can't get an abortion under the new bill? So date rape and such people have to keep the kid (if they can't afford it themselves and can't use medicaid)

Talking adding burden to the system that is already "broken" (IMO) we already have tons of kids that are not being adopted in our society, now we can add more!! yay!

Jan 31, 2011#30

David

I'm a little confused. Would this bill allow rapists to get off consequence free, or does it just prevent specific rape victims from getting federal aid for medical treatment? Either way would be horribly wrong, obviously, but the former seems worse in that it denies medical treatment to rape victims AND allows the rapist to walk away.

Jan 31, 2011#31

Norris

David said:
I'm a little confused. Would this bill allow rapists to get off consequence free, or does it just prevent specific rape victims from getting federal aid for medical treatment? Either way would be horribly wrong, obviously, but the former seems worse in that it denies medical treatment to rape victims AND allows the rapist to walk away.

No, it would still be a crime. Victims of non-forcible rapes just wouldn't be considered raped enough to warrant federal health coverage of an abortion.

In my opinion, reasonable people can disagree about whether or not the government should be funding any abortions. What reasonable people can't do is quibble over how raped is raped enough to warrant federal coverage of an abortion.

Feb 1, 2011#32

GasBandit

Dave said:
Well if we want UNreasonable opposition we got that in spades! We'll just use the GasBandit Signal!

Sorry, Work is on me again, and besides, I support abortion. In fact, I often wonder if we shouldn't have manditory abortions. Especially for poor, minorities, and women. And the irish.

Feb 1, 2011#33

The Lovely Boehner

GasBandit said:
Sorry, Work is on me again, and besides, I support abortion. In fact, I often wonder if we shouldn't have manditory abortions. Especially for poor, minorities, and women. And the irish.

how do you perform an abortion on a man again

Feb 1, 2011#34

GasBandit

The Lovely Boehner said:
how do you perform an abortion on a man again

With a coat hanger, same as the other.

Feb 1, 2011#35

Covar

GasBandit said:
Sorry, Work is on me again, and besides, I support abortion. In fact, I often wonder if we shouldn't have manditory abortions. Especially for poor, minorities, and women. And the irish.

But what will we eat?

Feb 2, 2011#36

Denbrought

Covar said:
But what will we eat?

Their potatoes?

Feb 2, 2011#37

Covar

But Irish babies are so delicious.

Feb 2, 2011#38

GasBandit

Denbrought said:

"Kawk goes WHERE?"

Feb 4, 2011#39

Iaculus

And just when you thought it couldn't possibly get worse...

Seriously, when did the House Republicans decide they wanted to be the party of puppy-kicking evil?

Feb 4, 2011#40

AshburnerX

Iaculus said:
And just when you thought it couldn't possibly get worse...

Seriously, when did the House Republicans decide they wanted to be the party of puppy-kicking evil?

Sometime before the 2000 election.

Feb 4, 2011#41

David

As much as I support a woman's right to choose, I don't believe anything that uses the phrase "anti-choice" counts as a valid information source. Same as if it said "pro-death."

Feb 4, 2011#42

Krisken

You certainly can't call it "pro-life" when they are willing to let the mother die in exchange for the fetus.

I really should add, it was summarizing what Nancy Keegan said, which was then quoted at the end of the story. Pro-choice slanted? Heavily.

Feb 4, 2011#43

Terrik

Pro-Compromise?

.....

Feb 4, 2011#44

Krisken

Pro-overpopulation.

Feb 5, 2011#45

Iaculus

A more detailed article on the subject.

Feb 5, 2011#46

North_Ranger

So... many... things... wrong... Can't... decide... what to... mock...

Feb 5, 2011#47

Dave

So this may be a dumb question...

If the mother's life is in danger and the hospital refuses her an abortion...wouldn't that kill the zygote, too? How is this really helping anyone?

Feb 5, 2011#48

Krisken

Shush, no logic in these discussions.

Damn it, Dave, haven't you been paying attention?

Feb 5, 2011#49

AshburnerX

Dave said:
So this may be a dumb question...

If the mother's life is in danger and the hospital refuses her an abortion...wouldn't that kill the zygote, too? How is this really helping anyone?

I think it's more for cases where the mother may die when giving birth, not when simply being pregnant could kill her.

Feb 5, 2011#50

Iaculus

Dave said:
So this may be a dumb question...

If the mother's life is in danger and the hospital refuses her an abortion...wouldn't that kill the zygote, too? How is this really helping anyone?

Well, I guess it means that after her inevitable death, the mother doesn't have to go to hell for authorising an abortion...

Feb 5, 2011#51

Dave

AshburnerX said:
I think it's more for cases where the mother may die when giving birth, not when simply being pregnant could kill her.

Okay, I dig that. But what do they propose to do to help the motherless baby? Anything? Anything at all?

Feb 5, 2011#52

Norris

Dave said:
Okay, I dig that. But what do they propose to do to help the motherless baby? Anything? Anything at all?

Wish the child luck? Or pray for it?

Feb 5, 2011#53

Ravenpoe

Dave said:
Okay, I dig that. But what do they propose to do to help the motherless baby? Anything? Anything at all?

They expect it to pull itself up by it's bootst...err, umbilical cord, and get itself a job.

Feb 7, 2011#54

@Li3n

I love how they imply that there's such a thing as non-forcible rape (besides consensual sex i guess

)...

Dave said:
Okay, I dig that. But what do they propose to do to help the motherless baby? Anything? Anything at all?

If it needs help then it's a dirty socialist....

Krisken said:
You certainly can't call it "pro-life" when they are willing to let the mother die in exchange for the fetus.

But that's how magic works... a life for a life and all that.

Feb 16, 2011#55

Chibibar

Dave said:
Okay, I dig that. But what do they propose to do to help the motherless baby? Anything? Anything at all?

That is one of my main argument about pro-life. It is nice and all that that these people are pro-life BUT what about those babies who their parents don't want them? some pro-life (in this case republican) are also anti socialism. soooooooooo what now?

Feb 16, 2011#56

Espy

Chibibar said:
That is one of my main argument about pro-life. It is nice and all that that these people are pro-life BUT what about those babies who their parents don't want them? some pro-life (in this case republican) are also anti socialism. soooooooooo what now?

I don't think it's a to crazy of a stretch to assume most people think babies born to parents who don't want them should have the opportunity to get adopted. But that brings up a whole nother batch of problems with adoption costs, timelines, etc.

Feb 16, 2011#57

Chibibar

Espy said:
I don't think it's a to crazy of a stretch to assume most people think babies born to parents who don't want them should have the opportunity to get adopted. But that brings up a whole nother batch of problems with adoption costs, timelines, etc.

Yea. Of course the social burden lies in the system to take care of the kids who no one wants to adopt them. Top that off, what kind of psychological impact these kids will have knowing that their parents don't want them, the would-be foster parents don't want them, and the system don't want them after 18.

Feb 16, 2011#58

Espy

Chibibar said:
Yea. Of course the social burden lies in the system to take care of the kids who no one wants to adopt them. Top that off, what kind of psychological impact these kids will have knowing that their parents don't want them, the would-be foster parents don't want them, and the system don't want them after 18.

I believe the standard reply would be, "yes it's not perfect but it's better than being dead". My only point is that it's kind of silly to assume pro-lifers want to let kids die in the street if their parents don't want them.

Feb 16, 2011#59

Tress

Of course it's silly to believe they want them to die in the street. In reality pro-lifers only want to save the babies so they can eat them later.

Feb 16, 2011#60

Espy

TRUTH.

Feb 16, 2011#61

Covar

Chibibar said:
That is one of my main argument about pro-life. It is nice and all that that these people are pro-life BUT what about those babies who their parents don't want them? some pro-life (in this case republican) are also anti socialism. soooooooooo what now?

Take them out to a back room and inject them with 3 different drugs so they will slowly drift into an unconscious state before passing away.

Feb 16, 2011#62

Denbrought

Tress said:
Of course it's silly to believe they want them to die in the street. In reality pro-lifers only want to save the babies so they can eat them later.

Wait, but it's the atheists that eat babies...

All the pro-lifers are godless? DDD:

Feb 16, 2011#63

GasBandit

The answer is plain - mandatory sterilization for anyone who makes less than $30,000 per year.

Feb 16, 2011#64

Tress

GasBandit said:
The answer is plain - mandatory sterilization for anyone who makes less than $30,000 per year.

That's going to make competition among teenagers for summer jobs pretty heated. I would have hated being sterilized at 17 because I worked part-time at an auto parts store.

Feb 16, 2011#65

GasBandit

Tress said:
That's going to make competition among teenagers for summer jobs pretty heated. I would have hated being sterilized at 17 because I worked part-time at an auto parts store.

Hell, Teenagers are definitely top of the list of groups who need to be sterilized.

Feb 16, 2011#66

Norris

GasBandit said:
Hell, Teenagers are definitely top of the list of groups who need to be sterilized.

Mass sterilization of teenagers...I since a flaw in this plan going forward.

Feb 16, 2011#67

Tress

Norris said:
Mass sterilization of teenagers...I since a flaw in this plan going forward.

GasBandit doesn't know what it was like to be a teenager. When his egg hatched he came out as a full-grown angry libertarian.

Feb 16, 2011#68

AshburnerX

Tress said:
GasBandit doesn't know what it was like to be a teenager. When he emerged from his can of beans, he came out as a full-grown angry libertarian.

Fixed that.

Feb 17, 2011#69

GasBandit

Tress said:
GasBandit doesn't know what it was like to be a teenager. When his egg hatched he came out as a full-grown angry libertarian.

Actually, I can think of a great many ways being a teenager would have been more fun if there was absolutely 0% risk of pregnancy.

But that's not the point.

And Norris hasn't sensed a flaw, he's sensed the grand finale.

Feb 17, 2011#70

Ravenpoe

My teenage years had 0% risk of pregnancy, and they didn't seem all that fun...

Feb 17, 2011#71

GasBandit

Ravenpoe said:
My teenage years had 0% risk of pregnancy, and they didn't seem all that fun...

Oh, the risk, the potential was there. That it was not actualized, well...

Feb 17, 2011#72

Krisken

So who would oversee this sterilization requirement? I thought you were against bigger government.

Feb 17, 2011#73

@Li3n

Krisken said:
So who would oversee this sterilization requirement? I thought you were against bigger government.

Obviously roving bands of self appointed citizens, equipped with freely donated bricks and rusty razors.

Feb 17, 2011#74

GasBandit

Krisken said:
So who would oversee this sterilization requirement? I thought you were against bigger government.

Believe you me, within 2 generations this will shrink government to unprecedented levels.

Feb 17, 2011#75

Norris

Ravenpoe said:
My teenage years had 0% risk of pregnancy, and they didn't seem all that fun...

AGREED.

GasBandit said:
Oh, the risk, the potential was there. That it was not actualized, well...

Not unless a girl can pregnant from rejecting a guy. Or being checked out. In which case, there was a huge risk.

Feb 17, 2011#76

GasBandit

Norris said:
AGREED.

Not unless a girl can pregnant from rejecting a guy. Or being checked out. In which case, there was a huge risk.

That doesn't mean there was no risk. Both of you were one roofie away from risking paternity.

Feb 17, 2011#77

Denbrought

GasBandit said:
That doesn't mean there was no risk. Both of you were one roofie away from risking paternity.

That's akin to telling me I'm at risk of going to prison for homicide because, y'know, it's only a-few-blows-with-a-sharpened-shovel-on-some-random-hobo's-neck away.

Feb 17, 2011#78

Krisken

Nobody expects a Spanish shovel-wielder.

Feb 18, 2011#79

Ravenpoe

Krisken said:
Nobody expects a Spanish shovel-wielder.

Sounds like my prom night!

Feb 18, 2011#80

North_Ranger

Ravenpoe said:
Sounds like my prom night!

You call it "The Shovel"?

Yikes.
Added at: 11:31

GasBandit said:
The answer is plain - mandatory sterilization for anyone who makes less than $30,000 per year.

You do know that a good number of states in your country did have compulsory sterilization policies in place in the last century? You know, to control the population growth of all those degenerate rural, East European-origin or "imbecile" people so they won't pollute the glorious gene pool.

Granted, I would have laughed at your suggestion if I didn't know about those policies myself. But there has been - and likely are - people who would actually do something like this if they could.

Feb 18, 2011#81

@Li3n

North_Ranger said:
You do know that a good number of states in your country did have compulsory sterilization policies in place in the last century? You know, to control the population growth of all those degenerate rural, East European-origin or "imbecile" people so they won't pollute the glorious gene pool.

Granted, I would have laughed at your suggestion if I didn't know about those policies myself. But there has been - and likely are - people who would actually do something like this if they could.

And to think, if it wasn't for that jerk-off Hitler we would have still have had those and a smaller, purer*, gene pool.

[/godwin'd]

*read "inbred"

Feb 18, 2011#82

GasBandit

Denbrought said:
That's akin to telling me I'm at risk of going to prison for homicide because, y'know, it's only a-few-blows-with-a-sharpened-shovel-on-some-random-hobo's-neck away.

You are.

North_Ranger said:
You do know that a good number of states in your country did have compulsory sterilization policies in place in the last century? You know, to control the population growth of all those degenerate rural, East European-origin or "imbecile" people so they won't pollute the glorious gene pool.

Granted, I would have laughed at your suggestion if I didn't know about those policies myself. But there has been - and likely are - people who would actually do something like this if they could.

The difference is my policy makes no distinction of race or national origin. And it'll be good for the environment too!

Feb 18, 2011#83

Necronic

Time to throw some poo in the fire

Statuatory Rape is not always Rape.

It can be, but I don't consider SR between consenting partners above the age of 14 or so to be rape.

Not that I care about the rest of the argument. I generally support gas bandits position.

Feb 20, 2011#84

@Li3n

Necronic said:
Statuatory Rape is not always Rape.

It can be, but I don't consider SR between consenting partners above the age of 14 or so to be rape.

Weird, i just heard today some 13-14 year olds talking about sex while on a trolley/tram and that totally convinced me that 14 is way to early...

And denying free abortions while still presumably indicting on of the parties as a sex offender is "have your cake and eating it too" BS...

Feb 21, 2011#85

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
The difference is my policy makes no distinction of race or national origin. And it'll be good for the environment too!

Well they didn't only use those distinctions either:

Illiteracy... it's genetic apparently.

Feb 21, 2011#86

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
Weird, i just heard today some 13-14 year olds talking about sex while on a trolley/tram and that totally convinced me that 14 is way to early...

Hmm. You may be right. Simple sterilization of all teenagers may not be enough... we may need to move to manditory castration/hysterectomy.

And denying free abortions while still presumably indicting on of the parties as a sex offender is "have your cake and eating it too" BS...

U.S. Laws are full of such contradictions. 18 is not old enough to drink but is old enough to be drafted and sent to die in a foreign land. 17 isn't old enough to face capital punishment for premeditated murder because a 17 year old isn't adult enough to understand the decisions he is making, but 13 is mature enough to understand all the implications and make a decision about whether to abort a fetus without the need for parental involvement. A teen can see fictional murders on TV and in movies, and pretend to murder hundreds of people in video games, the actual act of which only a small fraction of people will actually perform in real life... but if any of those TV shows, movies or video games explicitly depict an act of consensual sexual intercourse (the actual act of which nearly EVERYONE will experience in their lifetime, and odds are the teen already has as well), the media in question is subject to sanction, restriction and regulation.

Feb 21, 2011#87

Chibibar

@Li3n said:
Well they didn't only use those distinctions either:

Illiteracy... it's genetic apparently.

Wow..... back in the days, the signs are so pretty and neat!

Feb 21, 2011#88

Iaculus

Chibibar said:
Wow..... back in the days, the signs are so pretty and neat!

Well, yes. They had eugenicists to stave off the rising wave of illiterates, didn't they?

Feb 21, 2011#89

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Hmm. You may be right. Simple sterilization of all teenagers may not be enough... we may need to move to manditory castration/hysterectomy.

Wait, how where you planning to sterilize them without those?! Seeing how you're against wasteful spending i assumed the low tech options would be your 1st choice.

GasBandit said:
U.S. Laws are full of such contradictions.

Yeah, so no need to make even more...

GasBandit said:
18 is not old enough to drink but is old enough to be drafted and sent to die in a foreign land.

To be fair, holding your liquor takes some effort, while everyone is born good at dying. Hell, some even skip the alive phase and die on the way.

Feb 21, 2011#90

strawman

@Li3n said:
Wait, how where you planning to sterilize them without those?! Seeing how you're against wasteful spending i assumed the low tech options would be your 1st choice.

Chemical sterilization has come a long way.

Feb 21, 2011#91

GasBandit

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
Chemical sterilization has come a long way.

Indeed. Or sterilizing radioactive agents introduced through the Four Loko supply would also be a good start.

Feb 21, 2011#92

strawman

GasBandit said:
Indeed. Or sterilizing radioactive agents introduced through the Four Loko supply would also be a good start.

If someone can come up with a vasectomy pill that works just like an anti-biotic - take it for 10 days and you're a sterile male - they will make millions, force eugenics or not.

Many men would rather take a $50k set of pills for a few days than go through a few hundred or thousand dollar outpatient surgical procedure where sharp objects get entirely too close to one's jewels, especially if they can get it covered under public health insurance.

Feb 21, 2011#93

GasBandit

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
If someone can come up with a vasectomy pill that works just like an anti-biotic - take it for 10 days and you're a sterile male - they will make millions, force eugenics or not.

Many men would rather take a $50k set of pills for a few days than go through a few hundred or thousand dollar outpatient surgical procedure where sharp objects get entirely too close to one's jewels, especially if they can get it covered under public health insurance.

Heh... sterilization pills covered by public health insurance. That just sounds like a culture trying to eliminate itself

Feb 21, 2011#94

strawman

GasBandit said:
Heh... sterilization pills covered by public health insurance. That just sounds like a culture trying to eliminate itself

Once some nutcase finds a way to trade the amoxicillin for the vesectopill for a few million doses before it's discovered and switched back.

On the other hand, if we make it free and suggest drug dealers use it to cut their drugs with, will anyone really complain?

Feb 21, 2011#95

Krisken

I'm trying to imagine the implications of a sterilization pill being given to people by accident, or even worse, vindictively.

Feb 21, 2011#96

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I'm trying to imagine the implications of a sterilization pill being given to people by accident, or even worse, vindictively.

I think they made it into a movie. Children of men?

Feb 21, 2011#97

Krisken

Didn't see it.

Feb 21, 2011#98

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Didn't see it.

It wasn't exactly the defining epic of its time, but it did deal with the subject matter of what happens to society when humans can no longer produce offspring.

Feb 21, 2011#99

strawman

GasBandit said:
I think they made it into a movie. Children of men?

Interesting plot, but it sounds like the reason for the infertility is not given. It appears to be a relatively unexplored area in film, though I imagine books have incorporated it into their plot.

Can you imagine a future where some large terrorist group successfully doses large swaths of the American population through the water system (ie, al qaida causes infertility and reduced fertility in 80% of all the males of the top 10 largest cities)?

Although, honestly, widespread female infertility or miscarriage would be far more devastating than male infertility.

On the other hand, we are well off enough as a nation that adoption and surrogacy would fill in much of the gap left behind by widespread infertility. It would take a continent wide scale of infertility to really cause a problem.

Feb 21, 2011#100

Ravenpoe

Mass Effect had this as a plot point, with the krogan uprising being destroyed by infecting the race with an infertility virus.

Feb 21, 2011#101

Espy

Krisken said:
Didn't see it.

See it. Alfonso Cuaron directed it. It's fantastic sci-fi.

Feb 21, 2011#102

drifter

Pfft. Go watch Hell Comes to Frogtown. Absolutely riveting social commentary, with a blazing performance by one Roderick Toombs.

Feb 22, 2011#103

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Indeed. Or sterilizing radioactive agents introduced through the Four Loko supply would also be a good start.

But would producing and dispersing those be cheaper then straight up chopping off of a scrotum?!

Feb 22, 2011#104

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
But would producing and dispersing those be cheaper then straight up chopping off of a scrotum?!

There might be some cost effectiveness in bringing out the loppers in the less densely populated areas, but in the major population centers it's easier to just poison the well.

Feb 22, 2011#105

strawman

@Li3n said:
But would producing and dispersing those be cheaper then straight up chopping off of a scrotum?!

It's a lot easier to hide from the eunuch brigade than it is to hide from the only source of safe water and/or food for a 50 miles.

Besides, who's saying we can't do both, and more? A chemical approach, coupled with a manual approach, coupled with necessary gov't services being denied to those still fertile, etc.

Feb 22, 2011#106

Necronic

I support the sterilization of anyone who spends more than 3 hours a day loafing around online. Or watching TV.

Feb 22, 2011#107

Hailey Knight

China needs people like you guys.

Feb 23, 2011#108

@Li3n

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
It's a lot easier to hide from the eunuch brigade than it is to hide from the only source of safe water and/or food for a 50 miles.

Besides, who's saying we can't do both, and more? A chemical approach, coupled with a manual approach, coupled with necessary gov't services being denied to those still fertile, etc.

Because of spiralling national debt, that's why.

Feb 23, 2011#109

blotsfan

Well I think some cuts in education could be made.

Feb 23, 2011#110

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Well I think some cuts in education could be made.

We could easily pay for the entire sterilization program several times over simply by eliminating medicare, medicaid and social security. Whatever's left over we can put into the military budget to figure out a way to weaponize the sterilizing agent and bombard every corner of the globe with it.

Feb 23, 2011#111

strawman

Once we institute the program where the elderly and infirm are carried to the top of the mountains to die, we won't need those things anyway.

Feb 23, 2011#112

GasBandit

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
Once we institute the program where the elderly and infirm are carried to the top of the mountains to die, we won't need those things anyway.

Carrying them to the top of mountains is a waste of energy when we could simply be butchering them and feeding them to the young.

Feb 23, 2011#113

strawman

Butchering them and feeding them to the young is a waste of energy if we have no more young.

Feb 23, 2011#114

GasBandit

Young is a comparative reference. Even 20 years after the last child we allow to be born has slithered from its vile mammalian womb, there will still be those who are young. As compared to those who merely aren't quite old enough to be food yet.

Feb 23, 2011#115

sixpackshaker

Eventually even the Sandmen become Runners.

Forums