5 ms·
Of course they lost the ability to have wanted pregnancy which is a pretty serious loss for some people.
by elmin 10y ago
Of course they lost the ability to have wanted pregnancy which is a pretty serious loss for some people.
- CiPHPerCoder 10y agoThis is a non-issue for me, but I thought it was a perspective that bears mentioning (since I hear it a lot from heterosexual men).
- icanhackit 10y ago> they lost the ability to have wanted pregnancy Right, but I suspect the parent implied that this could be a feature that many would seek out - basically the chemical equivalent of a vasectomy that can't be undone. Some people, like me, really don't want kids. Taking control of it so that you're not relying on your partner is important as trust (that they haven't forgotten to use contraception or worse - deliberately not take it) isn't a rock-solid security policy. It's also not fair on females to be the only ones in charge of contraception for bare-skin sex.
- CorpOverreach 10y agoExactly this! If I can take a shot or a pill rather than a scalpel to my balls... sign me up.
- gaius 10y agoBut it's an unpredictable side effect. It might just stop working a few years later...
- gnaritas 10y agoSo it needs work, but a chemical vasectomy would be great.
- nmeofthestate 10y agoThe ablity to sterilise people with a pill/injection is a fairly scary prospect.
- jamesrcole 10y agoWhy? Having the means to do so is very very different from forcing it upon someone. Means to kill someone else are readily available to everyone -- kitchen knives, over the counter drugs -- but simply their availability isn't that scary.
- gaius 10y agoSlip it into someone's pills at a mental hospital say. Sweden was doing stuff like that up until the 1970s.
- jamesrcole 10y agoWhat were they giving to the patients? Was the existence of what they were giving to those patients a scary thing just for existing - coz that's the question here.
- gaius 10y agoThe ease with which something can be done makes a huge difference and it's disingenuous to argue otherwise.
- jamesrcole 10y agoa car can easily kill someone. As can millions of other things. It's ridiculous to suggest that that automatically makes their existence scary. Is the existence of injectable insulin scary just because someone could kill someone just by injecting them with it?
- 10y ago
- cknoxrun 10y agoJust to clarify, they don't use a scalpel anymore (getting snipped next month).
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y agoSome people, like me, really don't want kids One thing I've learned as I've collected laps-around-the-sun is that Present Me is a poor judge of what Future Me wants.
- gaur 10y agoAnother thing I've learned is that far too many parents take the statement "I don't want kids" as a personal challenge to moralize and condescend to people without children.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y agoOne could argue it is evolutionary advantageous for parents to do this.
- bhaak 10y agoNa, I think it has more to do with either projecting ones own wishes onto somebody else or maybe even talk somebody down so that you can feel better if you don't are completely happy with the current situation. I find it much more interesting to ask why somebody wants no kids. That gives much more insight into the person's mind than when you try to persuade them with your own experiences and produces much better followup talk opportunities.
- jamesrcole 10y agoeven if you could, so what? Anyway, I'm curious what you think it might be evolutionary advantageous. On the face of it, if others have less kids, that would seem advantageous to your own kids.
- filoeleven 10y agoWouldn't it be the opposite? That is, if I don't have any kids, then my kids aren't competing with their kids for resources.
- 10y ago