Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society Permanent birth control

Children so born are normally termed illegitimate - they have no standing or a completely different standing in the eyes of the applicable law. European societies generally civilly disabled such children in terms of inheritance of property, title or even a name. However, the acknowledgment of such a child by the father generally removed the disability if not the stigma.

Half-caste children in most societies were at one time generally considered to be almost nonhuman. East Asian Confucian societies, with their strong adherence to family unity and social conformity tend to be extremely racist even today, and the so-called "Children of the Dust" - Amerasians in Korea and Vietnam - tend to have almost no legal recognition as humans and much less as citizens or even children in need of special legal consideration.

AFAIK, only the PRC actually considers certain children to be illegal - those born without the state's imprimatur as a part of the population control effort. Their birth, if detected by the authorities, results in considerable civil and possibly criminal penalties against the parent(s).

No need to travel that far! There was a eugenics movement in this country at the turn of the previous century that led to sterilization laws to be applied to certain classes of the social spectrum. IIRC, Mr. Justice Holmes delivered his famous "three generations of idiots imbeciles are enough!" in upholding a (Vermont? Virginia) law.

The Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale, I believe, thereby cuckolding a rather unforgiving Roger Chillingworth.

I think it has been too long since you were young, my friend. It is not so much about cost as availability (especially at the appropriate time), which is quite a different matter.

In this country (at least in Georgia), even if the father is on the birth cirtificate, a 'legitimation' (is that a proper word?) process has to be gone through (costing us $5000, 15 or so years ago) in order for said child to have full benefits of inheritance of property, etc.

Isso, I had a flippant response to put here earlier (something like....condoms don't fit girls) but so much has been added and well my silly mood went away.

What NWP says here about the value of availability and what Mellow said earlier too was right on. Condoms aren't always in the right place at the right time....not to mention a hassle and all that.
But you're right they are cheap and pretty easy to get. I've seen them sold in men's restrooms (hey! remember I have a cleaning service!).

All this said and a point I mentioned earlier in this thread, can you think of any reason why female birth control (administered by herself at her own discretion instead of nudging the boy out of bed to take care of the problem?) can't be as cheap and as easy to get so that the girl can have some control over the situation?
There is no gender bias here?

Without links to back me up, I'm going to go out on a huge limb and say MOST WOMEN WANT TO HAVE BIRTH CONTROL OPTIONS THAT DON'T INCLUDE JUST NOT EVER HAVING SEX AGAIN.

I would like to add that I had my tubes tied when I was in my late 30s. I had just gotten a divorce. I didn't even have a boy friend but I knew I didn't want anymore children and I wanted to give up birth control pills.
I had good insurance at that time though so I could afford to take that responsibility.

One more thing I'd like to add....
The fact that I ended up with another baby any way (not very long after that)
was all good.

Probably a lot less "idiotic" than thinking ones neighbors should be held financially responsible for the consequences of ones actions, I would think.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

A female is free to purchase a condom (or shopping cart full of condoms) as is a male.
Yours,
Issodhos

Iss - yes, a female is free to purchase a condom as a male. However, while both are responsible, primary responsibility for proper use falls on the male.

As far as " Probably a lot less "idiotic" than thinking ones neighbors should be held financially responsible for the consequences of ones actions, I would think.:-)" --- you are about the LAST person I would expect to say that government intervention into a person's PERSON is a better idea than holding people responsible for their own actions.

I think it has been too long since you were young, my friend. It is not so much about cost as availability (especially at the appropriate time), which is quite a different matter. [/quote]

It was not I that introduced the question of affordibility, NW Ponderer. Having trouble keeping up?;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Responsibility for others is always so clear and clean cut.

But it is always hazardous to talk for others. Some men have difficulty getting an erection with a condom and whether you think that is a valid excuse or not doesn't matter -- those men will likely not use a rubber and will count on the woman for birth control.

She may not have been taking birth control and both, in the heat of passion, may take a chance that proves foolhardy.

There are other complications that just make it far different while in those other moccasins than sitting at a keyboard without temptations grip.