Would this be something you would consider - Mothering Forums

View Poll Results: Reproduction control from birth
Yes I would consider it for my child or children 51 30.00%
No I would never consider that for my child or children 113 66.47%
Other 6 3.53%
Voters: 170. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-06-2009, 01:38 AM - Thread Starter
 
MCatLvrMom2A&X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: With Vin Diesel ;) YUMMMM
Posts: 14,210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am currently reading a sci fi book where they talk about giving a newborn a reproductive inhibitor so that they cannot reproduce until they are 18yo.

This would NOT affect how they grew or going through puberty in any way it would only affect the girls ability to become pg and the boys from getting anyone pg. The affects are fully reversible with no affects on fertility after it is removed.


The reason this is done in infancy is because it is easier on the baby rather than waiting till older. Totally non invasive and no pain at all involved.

STD's are no longer an issue since they do not exist so that should be taken into consideration as well.

The procedure is free as well as the reversal so $ would play no part in it.

I have been thinking about this since I read it and I am curious to see what others would think of this.

Personally I can see a good side to this but can also see a down side.

So my question is would this be something you would consider?

 
SAHMlady.gifread.giflovin' trekkie.giffan intactivist.gifwinner.jpg to loveeyes.gifenergy.gifDD 10/00 & superhero.gifmoon.gifDS 10/04 ribbonpb.gifIf your ds is intact, keep him safe, visit the Case Against Circ forumnocirc.gifCirc, a personal choice, Your sonsyes.gifbrokenheart.gif11/98brokenheart.gif6/99ribbonbrown.gifanti-tobaccoribbonyellow.gifThyroid cancer survivor. With cat.gif& goldfish.gif & (Boxer)dog2.gif wishing 4 whale.gif&ribbonwhite.gifsigncirc1.gifselectivevax.gifdelayedvax.gif

MCatLvrMom2A&X is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-06-2009, 01:50 AM
 
sapphire_chan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 27,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It isn't babies that make me not want my kids having pre-adulthood sex.

And : think about the side effects. I mean... BCPs, depo, IUDs...every "miracle pregnancy prevention" invention ever has had problems.

And doing that to a baby???

Okay, so we're talking like 300 years in the future and the side effects have been solved. Still prefer the version where the girl has her first menarche then can go and get an implant and not have to bother about it again until she wants to get pregnant (no idea what guys do).

A culture that actively keeps all of its babies from having babies is a culture that isn't doing enough to protect its babies. Because really, what.is.going.on if a 3 year old needs reproductive protection?
sapphire_chan is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 01:52 AM - Thread Starter
 
MCatLvrMom2A&X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: With Vin Diesel ;) YUMMMM
Posts: 14,210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yeah it is in the hypothetical very distant future. I think the idea for doing it as an infant in the book was it was easier at that time thought it dosnt go into great detail. I love when a book challenges my thinking or anything does for that matter.

So lets say for the poll that this is the case where it is easier on the baby to do it that way instead of when they are older.

 
SAHMlady.gifread.giflovin' trekkie.giffan intactivist.gifwinner.jpg to loveeyes.gifenergy.gifDD 10/00 & superhero.gifmoon.gifDS 10/04 ribbonpb.gifIf your ds is intact, keep him safe, visit the Case Against Circ forumnocirc.gifCirc, a personal choice, Your sonsyes.gifbrokenheart.gif11/98brokenheart.gif6/99ribbonbrown.gifanti-tobaccoribbonyellow.gifThyroid cancer survivor. With cat.gif& goldfish.gif & (Boxer)dog2.gif wishing 4 whale.gif&ribbonwhite.gifsigncirc1.gifselectivevax.gifdelayedvax.gif

MCatLvrMom2A&X is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 02:05 AM
 
Sailor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Assuming 100% no side effects ... sure. But, it would have to be 100% no side effects, and the reversal would also have to be 100% effective.

Otherwise, no.

I actually think I'd do it different, though. Get it done, and then leave it up to the child when they want it removed. I mean, after they turn 18. So, for instance, maybe they don't want kids until age 30 - they can keep it. Maybe they want kids at 18 - they can remove it.

Actually, it seems like a good birth control idea. It would totally eliminate unwanted pregnancy. I'd get it done on myself, lol, if it existed.

First special delivery - April 2010 :
Sailor is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 02:05 AM
 
sapphire_chan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 27,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Huh, easier as an infant. Sounds like a procedure done today. Do people also say stuff like "you'll be sorry when it has to be done anyway and he's old enough to remember it"?

Mind you, that does make the "baby" aspect of things less creepy.

Honestly, as a commonly done thing in society, that had not been shown to do harm after generations of that practice, I'd probably end up having it done to my babies.

See my two major objections are the health risks and personal volition. You're saying that in the book the health risks have been completely erased.
And, in a society where it's the norm to be infertile until you have this procedure reversed or whatever, it'd seem more like "having" to use carseats than like "having" to have vaccines.

But here and now? No.

(It's funny how actually having babies changes how you read SF. Like I remember thinking uterine replicators were sort of spiffy....)
sapphire_chan is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 02:16 AM - Thread Starter
 
MCatLvrMom2A&X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: With Vin Diesel ;) YUMMMM
Posts: 14,210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Huh, easier as an infant. Sounds like a procedure done today. Do people also say stuff like "you'll be sorry when it has to be done anyway and he's old enough to remember it"?
I thought the same thing as I typed it out. But in this instance we will say it is actually the truth. It is safer and easier on the infant.

There is no way I would consider it here and now the very idea

 
SAHMlady.gifread.giflovin' trekkie.giffan intactivist.gifwinner.jpg to loveeyes.gifenergy.gifDD 10/00 & superhero.gifmoon.gifDS 10/04 ribbonpb.gifIf your ds is intact, keep him safe, visit the Case Against Circ forumnocirc.gifCirc, a personal choice, Your sonsyes.gifbrokenheart.gif11/98brokenheart.gif6/99ribbonbrown.gifanti-tobaccoribbonyellow.gifThyroid cancer survivor. With cat.gif& goldfish.gif & (Boxer)dog2.gif wishing 4 whale.gif&ribbonwhite.gifsigncirc1.gifselectivevax.gifdelayedvax.gif

MCatLvrMom2A&X is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 03:05 AM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire_chan View Post
(It's funny how actually having babies changes how you read SF. Like I remember thinking uterine replicators were sort of spiffy....)
Bujold? I never read her until I'd already had my first child (by unwanted cesarean, at that). I love her work, but the replicators make me want to hit people.

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 04:11 AM
 
Sailor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm pregnant now ... and, uh, I still think uterine replicators are kind of nifty.

I have this idea of a replicator that looks like a modern art piece you'd keep in your home. And then when the baby was ready to come out, it would open. Also, it would be neat if you could peak in and see how the baby was developing.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm really enjoying being pregnant and am in total awe of what my body does. But, stuff like uterine replicators fascinates me.

First special delivery - April 2010 :
Sailor is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 05:28 AM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 8,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I voted no.

I guess there is something about it that seems far too controlling. I can understand parents prefering their kids wait until they are older to get pregnant either on purpose or accidentally. But anything that implies one person having control over another persons fertility... well to use the MDC word, it squicks me out. I wouldn't be comfortable with having that much control over DD or DS's body even if it is in their best interest.

malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 05:34 AM
 
Mama2Jesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No. Eww, no no no no.

This very articulate, mature response brought to you by fours hours of sleep. Also, the letter A.

Good night.
Mama2Jesse is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 01:00 PM
crl
 
crl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post
I voted no.

I guess there is something about it that seems far too controlling. I can understand parents prefering their kids wait until they are older to get pregnant either on purpose or accidentally. But anything that implies one person having control over another persons fertility... well to use the MDC word, it squicks me out. I wouldn't be comfortable with having that much control over DD or DS's body even if it is in their best interest.


I think the history of government-imposed sterilizations reinforces the squick factor. I understand that this hypothetical is parentally-imposed, but somehow the idea still bothers me a lot.

Catherine
crl is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 01:06 PM
 
Teenytoona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'd do it to myself, but not to a child. I don't think it's right to have that sort of control over another's body.

signature currently in transition
Teenytoona is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 01:07 PM
 
babygrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: BC Canada
Posts: 7,499
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No, I would never get that done to my kids.. How about we teach out kids safe sex and hope that they comply. So now these teenagers wouldn't be able to have children until they are 18, but the reality of std's are still there. I know of some moms who had babies at 16, 17, 18 years old and they are MUCH better mothers than some other people.
babygrant is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 01:16 PM
 
AbigailGrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: La La Land
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You mean instead of teaching them morals and values? Give them a license to experiment with sex? Uhhhh, no thank you!!

I have enough friends who have told me their moms put them on birth control before they ever thought of having sex and it encouraged them to go ahead and try it. These women said they would never do that to their own daughters knowing what they went through...

It's like giving a 4 yo a butcher knife but insisting he put it on his shelf and never play with it.

JMHO

Abigail Grace (40ish), Wife to 1 Knight in Shining Armor
Homeschooling Mom to 6 and a surprise bundle due in March
AbigailGrace is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 01:28 PM
 
delightedbutterfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,628
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
No!

Girls have historically gotten there menses between 13-16 for a reason. And although I fully understand that that reason has been squashed a bit but the fact we are living so much longer I still believe that growing and maturing naturally (or as close to it in our world of chemicals) is best.

But then I also think that while children need to be children when young, I think as a society we have gone too far and our children are missing out on early responsibility and family care. And physically I believe it is healthier to have babies younger than older (but that neither should be wrong or taboo). But that is a completely different thread...

Mom to two beautiful girls and  ****5****10****15****20****25****30****35******

Come check out MDC's Updated User Agreement  
delightedbutterfly is online now  
Old 10-06-2009, 01:40 PM
 
dawningmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: North Carolina!
Posts: 4,523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No, for the same reason I didn't circ or pierce baby ears: I don't believe in making physical changes to someone's body without their express permission (or, well, a medical necessity).

I'm a morning person.  We actually do exist.
dawningmama is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 01:40 PM
 
limabean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
No! That's not a decision for me to make for someone else, even my child.

Not to mention the fact that this procedure presumably wouldn't protect against STDs, but the fact that all the kids knew pregnancy wasn't a risk would probably significantly reduce condom usage, so they'd be running around with all kinds of infections. Yuck.

DH+Me 1994 heartbeat.gif DS 2004 heartbeat.gif DD 2008 heartbeat.gif DDog 2014
limabean is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 02:41 PM
 
ursusarctos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post
I voted no.

I guess there is something about it that seems far too controlling. I can understand parents prefering their kids wait until they are older to get pregnant either on purpose or accidentally. But anything that implies one person having control over another persons fertility... well to use the MDC word, it squicks me out. I wouldn't be comfortable with having that much control over DD or DS's body even if it is in their best interest.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama2Jesse View Post
No. Eww, no no no no.

This very articulate, mature response brought to you by fours hours of sleep. Also, the letter A.

Good night.

Me treehugger.gif and DH caffix.gif and sweet baby DD heartbeat.gif born 08/2011.

ursusarctos is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 03:17 PM
 
FullMetalMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: La Push
Posts: 343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teenytoona View Post
I'd do it to myself, but not to a child. I don't think it's right to have that sort of control over another's body.
Yep. Even teenage girls should have the right to decide what happens to their bodies.

+ = and .
FullMetalMom is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 03:42 PM
 
limette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,424
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No, because it's not my decision to make.
limette is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 03:57 PM
 
Mountaingirl79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Asheville NC
Posts: 1,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:

That sounds like a terrible idea.

Mom to three boys 7/7/00 fencing.gif 11/20/02 and 10/29/2011 luxlove.gif

 

Writing at: http://paisleymama.blogspot.com/ and other places! 

 

 
 
 

Mountaingirl79 is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 04:21 PM
 
becoming's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 11,592
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
In that scenario, maybe. But considering that they could never fully guarantee that there would be no ill effects from something like this, absolutely not.
becoming is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 05:00 PM
 
Alyantavid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by limette View Post
No, because it's not my decision to make.
That.
Alyantavid is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 05:33 PM
 
Peacemamalove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Essex Junction,Vermont
Posts: 3,721
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teenytoona View Post
I'd do it to myself, but not to a child. I don't think it's right to have that sort of control over another's body.
i agree!

namaste.gif Practicing medicine Mama to four beautiful children 
Peacemamalove is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 05:44 PM - Thread Starter
 
MCatLvrMom2A&X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: With Vin Diesel ;) YUMMMM
Posts: 14,210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
About the STD's If the technology is far enough along to do this then there are no STD's anymore so that would be a mute point.

 
SAHMlady.gifread.giflovin' trekkie.giffan intactivist.gifwinner.jpg to loveeyes.gifenergy.gifDD 10/00 & superhero.gifmoon.gifDS 10/04 ribbonpb.gifIf your ds is intact, keep him safe, visit the Case Against Circ forumnocirc.gifCirc, a personal choice, Your sonsyes.gifbrokenheart.gif11/98brokenheart.gif6/99ribbonbrown.gifanti-tobaccoribbonyellow.gifThyroid cancer survivor. With cat.gif& goldfish.gif & (Boxer)dog2.gif wishing 4 whale.gif&ribbonwhite.gifsigncirc1.gifselectivevax.gifdelayedvax.gif

MCatLvrMom2A&X is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 05:50 PM
 
RomanCarmelMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alabama, USA
Posts: 184
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think that would be highly immoral and a human rights violation in many different ways. Not to mention that birth control is against our religious beliefs.

Wife to DH and Mommy to DS(2 yrs) : : : :
RomanCarmelMom is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 05:52 PM
 
beckyand3littlemonsters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Leeds, England
Posts: 3,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i voted no, no way the same way i wouldn't force my dd's to use the pill as soon as they start having periods, i'm going to talk to them about the merits of safe sex and hope they will listen, it's all we can do really i have no intention of fitting them with metal chastity belts lol

Becky, sahm to angel.gif25/04/2000 Chloe 12/04/2002 Cameron 19/02/2004 Caitlin 28/06/2005 angel.gif24/07/2006 and Caden 14/03/2008

Xander 19/05/2011
angel.gif 19.05.2012 angel.gif 18.08.2012 angel.gif 24.05.2013 angel.gif 25.6.2013 belly.gif 04.09.2014 uc.jpg

beckyand3littlemonsters is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 05:59 PM
 
Ruthla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 43,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
I can see one of two things happening here: either it automatically "wears off" at age 18, and then you've got a sexually active 18yo with no clue about safe sex or contraceptives, or you need to "do something" to undo the contraceptive effect, and what if you want kids but can't afford the procedure, or you're denied the chance to have it removed? And what if something goes wrong and it leads to lifetime infertility?

Yeah, I "get" that the sci-fi setup is that it's completely painless, safe, and effective, and the real world isn't. But if we're dealing in utopian ideals, why are the under 18s having sex anyway?

Ruth, single mommy to Leah, 19, Hannah, 18 (commuting to college), and Jack, 13(homeschooled)
Ruthla is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 06:13 PM - Thread Starter
 
MCatLvrMom2A&X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: With Vin Diesel ;) YUMMMM
Posts: 14,210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Because no matter what the society there will be those who are curious about sex and will do it. There is still the drive there even though there can be no child resulting from it.

These kids will be taught about sex and all that it entails so they would not be 18 with no clue about safe sex (though as I put in the OP there is not risk of STD's anymore) The procedure is free as well as the reversal.

I do think that one day this will be the case if the world goes on long enough. I am sure by that time people will view things differently than they do now so it fascinates me how people view things now.

 
SAHMlady.gifread.giflovin' trekkie.giffan intactivist.gifwinner.jpg to loveeyes.gifenergy.gifDD 10/00 & superhero.gifmoon.gifDS 10/04 ribbonpb.gifIf your ds is intact, keep him safe, visit the Case Against Circ forumnocirc.gifCirc, a personal choice, Your sonsyes.gifbrokenheart.gif11/98brokenheart.gif6/99ribbonbrown.gifanti-tobaccoribbonyellow.gifThyroid cancer survivor. With cat.gif& goldfish.gif & (Boxer)dog2.gif wishing 4 whale.gif&ribbonwhite.gifsigncirc1.gifselectivevax.gifdelayedvax.gif

MCatLvrMom2A&X is offline  
Old 10-06-2009, 06:28 PM
 
Mama2Bug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: It is a mystery.
Posts: 2,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No way.

My job as a parent is to provide information and access to appropriate medical care. That means that my children will receive, throughout childhood and into their teens, ongoing and updated information about sexuality, relationships, intercourse, pregnancy, STDs and methods to prevent any undesirable outcomes, as well as the risks/benefits of those methods.

Sure, it would be easier to fit them with modern-day chastity belts, but it wouldn't be very effective at producing a well-informed, independent, responsible human being.

Additionally, I don't see teen pregnancy as an "end of the world, ruined your life" scenario. It has it's own set of challenges, which teens should be ready to meet if they choose to take the risk, but it isn't a death-sentence to be prevented at all cost.

Homeschooling, etsy-crafting Mama to spunky DD (12-04) and wife to DH.
 
Mama2Bug is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off