Split Popuation Control and Pregnancy Insurance (was DeSantis survey)

[Jarhyn]

Staff edit: Split from

DeSantis signs bill requiring FL students, professors to register political views with state

Sheer nonsense. The ideas, beliefs and viewpoints that the Florida legislature is interested in and where one chooses to express (or censor) are going to be along political, ideological or religious lines. University X has 1,000 students. 300 students express that they are uncomfortable with...

iidb.org

I concur that it makes good sense to acknowledge the degree to which any person tried to minimize their moral shortcomings. IMO, there are no saints. I eat meat, but I acknowledge the moral issues it brings, as well as the environmental issues it leads to. If and when vat grown meat can be produced as a substitute, I will support it. The same goes for seafood farms. And population control.

Population control is assuredly evil. Ask the Chinese.

If you can get people to voluntarily get vasectomies, though, I say go for it.

I keep pointing out "accidental impregnation insurance" as a compulsory buy-in for all folks who can impregnate someone else would promptly lead from this gentle kick in the wallet resulting to a swift snip to the vas deferens

 

[Jarhyn]

I concur that it makes good sense to acknowledge the degree to which any person tried to minimize their moral shortcomings. IMO, there are no saints. I eat meat, but I acknowledge the moral issues it brings, as well as the environmental issues it leads to. If and when vat grown meat can be produced as a substitute, I will support it. The same goes for seafood farms. And population control.

Population control is assuredly evil. Ask the Chinese.

Future generations may wish we had imposed more population control.

It's just a really complicated matter of how to actually achieve that.

In many respects, just having good education and medical care, with low infant mortality rates, will do the trick.

Many countries are having their population "controlled" this way without issue.

The bigger problem is the rampancy of Quiverful style families who are attempting to literally breed their way to dominionism.

Edit: and who are eroding the educational system for the sake of maintaining this supremely idiotic meme despite the idiocy of it.

 

[TomC]

I keep pointing out "accidental impregnation insurance" as a compulsory buy-in for all folks who can impregnate someone

Very sexist.

How about "unintended pregnancy insurance" for all the people who could become unintentionally pregnant? They're the problem.
Tom

 

[lostone]

Many of those Quiverful style families believe that the rapture is near and thus there is no reason to worry about Climate Change or the environment. Heaven waits for them.

 

[Jarhyn]

I keep pointing out "accidental impregnation insurance" as a compulsory buy-in for all folks who can impregnate someone

Very sexist.

How about "unintended pregnancy insurance" for all the people who could become unintentionally pregnant? They're the problem.
Tom

If you want to call something sexist, blame the god neither of us believes in:

It is a simple fact that ONLY people who impregnate someone else can lie about it, disappear, fail to pay, or otherwise avoid responsibility, and it has happened too often now throughout history to afford anything but the expectation of acceptance of these risks up front.

 

[Jarhyn]

Many of those Quiverful style families believe that the rapture is near and thus there is no reason to worry about Climate Change or the environment. Heaven waits for them.

The saddest part is that given their ravid contributions towards what they believe will accelerate the apocalypse, they are in fact volunteering themselves for hell, if such a place exists.

In fact, they are, in the context of climate change, accelerating it.

And these are the fucks who are driving the enforcement arm, the threat of lawsuit for stepping outside the bubble of ignorance their handlers convince them to maintain, as per education.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I keep pointing out "accidental impregnation insurance" as a compulsory buy-in for all folks who can impregnate someone

Very sexist.

How about "unintended pregnancy insurance" for all the people who could become unintentionally pregnant? They're the problem.
Tom

Are you just being a gadfly here, or are you really this ignorant?

 

[TomC]

I keep pointing out "accidental impregnation insurance" as a compulsory buy-in for all folks who can impregnate someone

Very sexist.

How about "unintended pregnancy insurance" for all the people who could become unintentionally pregnant? They're the problem.
Tom

Are you just being a gadfly here, or are you really this ignorant?

I'm making fun of @Jarhyn nonsense. Starting with the most obvious and politically correct nonsense.

Compulsory payments based on sex are sexist. That's just the beginning of the idiocy he's promoting.

I kinda ignored it the first couple times he said it. I thought it sarcasm or something. But now I'm not so sure.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

As I've pointed out a few times, compulsory payments on the basis of ability to impregnate is not "on the basis of sex". It's on the basis of the specific ability to do a specific thing: to "ding dong dash" on a pregnancy.

Someone could absolutely be both "male" by any measure short of "pregnancy theoretics" and also not be "able to impregnate another".

IMO it solves two messy problems by recognizing a messy truth like a mature society: that people who can just run away from a pregnancy represent a shared risk pool, and that there is no incentive towards the number one reason a pregnancy becomes unwanted (lack of guaranteed support).

It is Consensual population control, amid a mechanism to disable the ability to impregnate and run from the individual share of cost.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I keep pointing out "accidental impregnation insurance" as a compulsory buy-in for all folks who can impregnate someone

Very sexist.

How about "unintended pregnancy insurance" for all the people who could become unintentionally pregnant? They're the problem.
Tom

Are you just being a gadfly here, or are you really this ignorant?

I'm making fun of @Jarhyn nonsense. Starting with the most obvious and politically correct nonsense.

Compulsory payments based on sex are sexist. That's just the beginning of the idiocy he's promoting.

I kinda ignored it the first couple times he said it. I thought it sarcasm or something. But now I'm not so sure.
Tom

So, ignorant, or intentionally obtuse.

Got it.

Oh. You thought you were being funny?

 

[TomC]

As I've pointed out a few times, compulsory payments on the basis of ability to impregnate is not "on the basis of sex".

Lemme know when you come to understand the reality that the rest of us live in.

The ability to impregnate is based on sex. I realize that you don't understand that, but most of us do.
Tom

 

[Worldtraveller]

As I've pointed out a few times, compulsory payments on the basis of ability to impregnate is not "on the basis of sex".

Lemme know when you come to understand the reality that the rest of us live in.

The ability to impregnate is based on sex. I realize that you don't understand that, but most of us do.
Tom

Umm. No. I can't impregnate anyone.

So if I understand Jarhyn's idea, I would not have to carry that insurance.

 

[TomC]

I keep pointing out "accidental impregnation insurance" as a compulsory buy-in for all folks who can impregnate someone

Very sexist.

How about "unintended pregnancy insurance" for all the people who could become unintentionally pregnant? They're the problem.
Tom

Are you just being a gadfly here, or are you really this ignorant?

I'm making fun of @Jarhyn nonsense. Starting with the most obvious and politically correct nonsense.

Compulsory payments based on sex are sexist. That's just the beginning of the idiocy he's promoting.

I kinda ignored it the first couple times he said it. I thought it sarcasm or something. But now I'm not so sure.
Tom

So, ignorant, or intentionally obtuse.

Got it.

Oh. You thought you were being funny?

I understand that only males can impregnate anyone. If you think that makes me ignorant and obtuse, fine.

It's what I expect from Wokesters who I consider ignorant and obtuse.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

The ability to impregnate is based on sex

No. It's based on the ability to produce sperm.

You don't realize that some people you would most certainly call women, females even, produce sperm ya?

As I've pointed out a few times, compulsory payments on the basis of ability to impregnate is not "on the basis of sex".

Lemme know when you come to understand the reality that the rest of us live in.

The ability to impregnate is based on sex. I realize that you don't understand that, but most of us do.
Tom

Umm. No. I can't impregnate anyone.

So if I understand Jarhyn's idea, I would not have to carry that insurance.

BINGO!

 

[TomC]

As I've pointed out a few times, compulsory payments on the basis of ability to impregnate is not "on the basis of sex".

Lemme know when you come to understand the reality that the rest of us live in.

The ability to impregnate is based on sex. I realize that you don't understand that, but most of us do.
Tom

Umm. No. I can't impregnate anyone.

So if I understand Jarhyn's idea, I would not have to carry that insurance.

Let's have @Jarhyn explain how to distinguish between people who can impregnate and people who can't.

I've not had potentially fertile sex in over 30 years. Does that make me incapable of impregnating anyone?

We are talking about "compulsory payments" here.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I understand that only males can impregnate anyone. If you think that makes me ignorant and obtuse, fine.

It's what I expect from Wokesters who I consider ignorant and obtuse.
Tom

Blame the god that neither of us believes in for that

Sometimes reality has a bias, and that bias pivots around a directly relevant factor to a situation.

I'm all for looking away from irrelevant factors where they are irrelevant.

As it is, a lot of transwomen would need to carry such insurance.

Maybe issue a card to everyone that doesn't need to carry it. Then, I dare say you could even gate things like prison and bathroom access on whether someone has a card, or pays the insurance.

I would be willing to bet a lot of people would utterly refuse casual sex to anyone who couldn't present a card.

Sure, lots of men and males and transwomen would bitch and moan and complain but the fact is, it's not expensive or particularly risky to get snipped.

And thus would be the end of unwanted pregnancies and overpopulation, all because a particular population is too much of a bunch of big babies to just pay for their decisions up front.

 

[Jarhyn]

Does that make me incapable of impregnating anyone?

Did you get a vasectomy?

 

[TomC]

No. It's based on the ability to produce sperm.

I produce sperm.

I also know a young man at a local church who's healthy, straight, wants a family. But he's also responsible and is waiting for sex until he's got a partner who'd make a good mother.

Are you insisting that he pay into a fund to rescue dumber people from the ill effects of their free choices?
Tom

 

[TomC]

Does that make me incapable of impregnating anyone?

Did you get a vasectomy?

No
What does that have to do with you forcing me to do anything?

Let's be clear here. You are the one advocating "compulsory" behavior. You want to force people to follow your rules, presumably by force of the state.

If that's not what you're advocating then please explain what you mean by compulsory.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

No. It's based on the ability to produce sperm.

I produce sperm.

I also know a young man at a local church who's healthy, straight, wants a family. But he's also responsible and is waiting for sex until he's got a partner who'd make a good mother.

Are you insisting that he pay into a fund to rescue dumber people from the ill effects of their free choices?
Tom

So long as he has neither a vasectomy or a marriage, YES, because he is already one of those dumber people whose "I'm not like the other boys" personal myth is exactly part of the problem.

If he wants to later get into a marriage, it's not like his payments won't come back to him from the assistance this good mother he eventually finds will receive.

The fact is, sharing this risk pool makes all sense in the world.

It's not unlike social security: if you have a family, in a responsible and prompt way, you're going to get what you pay in back more or less.

If you cause a family in an irresponsible way or insist on just being a perpetual risk to everyone you may or may not fuck, and let's be clear here, you almost ended up in this boat yourself, mister, then your payments at least mitigated your bullshit.

All this subsidized by those who will neither get snipped nor get laid.