If you have sex 100x, then over time, there is a chance that you end up getting her pregnant.
Why would anyone resist?
so the demand influx would help reduce the price.
half of which are on the topic of porn
No one ever has sex 100 times firstly
Plan B is always effective
In the future, condoms will become better overall at preventing.
If we teach people about it and have sexual education mandatory, then we can inform the public more. Teens want to do it because they are not educated. In Illinois, it is a requirement, and people are informed, which means they know how to practice.
Even when they are educated about sex safety, many teens want sex without protection. Mandatory vasectomies are a good way to allow them to do unprotected sex, which a lot of people want.This is simply lies
But the start would be expensive. It would take time to lower the prices too, and even so, the equipment will still stay the same
So cut our national defense from threats around the world
Then it is authoritarian. Authoritarian policies are god awful
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/07/how-much-sex-should-couples-have/4680968002/ states that the average couple has sex 100x in about 2 years.
Not all females use Plan B though. Making people take a pill every time they have sex to prevent abortions requires that we know when people are having sex. Mandatory vasectomies on the other hand, is a one time surgery that once it's done, it's done and abortions basically end with it, all with unintended pregnancies hitting 0/year.
Sexual education is already mandatory. Unintended pregnancies still occur. It's easier to provide vastectomies to people than to educate the youth on some topic that isin't 100% effective.
If the supply skyrockets by the government hiring doctors to do this, then the cost would stay at about $1000/vastecomy.
The threats that attack the US don't need a military the size of the US's. If we cut our spending by 50%, our military spending would still be like double China's, and we are in NATO, so NATO would help protect us if we get attacked. We shouldn't be spending as much as we currently do on the military anyway, but this is off topic. We would be preventing 40 million annual abortions from this policy. People also can have more sex.
are you actually serious
So, 26% of the population will hit that 100 mark in 2 years according to your numbers. If they are having sex every 2 months, they hit that mark in under 17 years.In fact, 26% of couples are doing the once a week and some even two months according to the doctor involved
Plan B is supposed to be used as a last resort in case the condom is ineffective at performing itself, it should not be used every time sexual intercourse is done upon someone. A condom is there to protect 99% of the timeNot all women use Plan B when they have to, so we can't depend on that.
It's mandatory in 24 states and required by law
The government then has to do the followingA) Pay the doctorsB) Upgrade equipmentC) Buy facilitiesD) Direct people to go and do this if it is a LAW
Universal health care would be able to solve all of this, and if you simply redirected the funds here to UHC, then this would not be a problem, and could be a policy you can include giving more access to everyone
China's military is rapidly growing despite our spending 2x.
They are competitive with us now within 30 years of time from a modern standpoint. They also have more troops, and near equal in everything. War in China would destroy us, and we need to defend against them, and not expose ourselves as vulnerable. Then if NATO happens to join, it's WWIII, idiotic.
Also you are not saving lives. You are destroying lives
Not only that, but accidents do happen no matter what.
You are forming number without any logic or reasoning.
During 2010–2014, an estimated 56 million induced abortions occurred each year worldwide.
We would still have abortions
because human rights violation?
Increased demand means increased price.
Let me guess... This money is going to come from... Lemme get in the Alec mindset here... uhhh... I know! Let's tax something! What should we tax? Uhhh, I am wearing shoes. Tax on shoes? Nah people might just not buy shoes... I know! Let's tax walking! Surgically install a government issued fitbit into everyone's wrist to track the number of steps they take and charge them 2¢ per step.
When they debase Americans' wages and excessively tax them to pay for the vasectomies,
In fact, 26% of couples are doing the once a week and some even two months according to the doctor involvedSo, 26% of the population will hit that 100 mark in 2 years according to your numbers. If they are having sex every 2 months, they hit that mark in under 17 years.
Plan B is supposed to be used as a last resort in case the condom is ineffective at performing itself, it should not be used every time sexual intercourse is done upon someone. A condom is there to protect 99% of the timeNot all women use Plan B when they have to, so we can't depend on that.
It's mandatory in 24 states and required by lawHave abortions been eliminated from these states? No. Because sex ed isin't 100% effective. It can be used in addition to my policy though.
The government then has to do the followingA) Pay the doctorsB) Upgrade equipmentC) Buy facilitiesD) Direct people to go and do this if it is a LAWI think the doctor payment is what the $1000 fee would cost. Equipment doesn't have to be upgraded, only made more numerous. Facilities could be bought, and when this project ends, they could be sold at a profit, How is bullet point D a problem?
Universal health care would be able to solve all of this, and if you simply redirected the funds here to UHC, then this would not be a problem, and could be a policy you can include giving more access to everyoneI'd be fine with adding this policy on to UHC/Medicare for all.
China's military is rapidly growing despite our spending 2x.As of right now, their military spending isn't that high. When it becomes comparable to NATO's military spending, then we can increase our spending. As of right now, we don't need a military 5x the size of China's.
They are competitive with us now within 30 years of time from a modern standpoint. They also have more troops, and near equal in everything. War in China would destroy us, and we need to defend against them, and not expose ourselves as vulnerable. Then if NATO happens to join, it's WWIII, idiotic.If NATO joins, then it would help the US beat China. Also, if this becomes a mandatory policy worldwide, then it would weaken China because they wouldn't reproduce anymore since the Chinese couldn't afford to pay the huge reversal fee that has to be paid ever time before they have a kid. If China's not reproducing anymore, it makes them dependant on labor from other countries that can afford the reversal fee, making them have to abandon communism in order to attract western migrants; the only people who can afford this process. The existing Chinese benefit because they could have as much sex as they want and not get the girl pregnant. At the same time, it forces China to abandon communism if they wish to attract migrants from around the world.
Not only that, but accidents do happen no matter what.After the vasectomy is 2 months old (or the guy ejactulates 20x, whichever is done first, with some guys going further for safety), they could have unprotected sex without even the slightest risk of unwanted pregnancy. The effectiveness rate would be 100%.
You are forming number without any logic or reasoning.https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide states that 56 million abortions happen per year worldwide, so I was close. THe cite states:
During 2010–2014, an estimated 56 million induced abortions occurred each year worldwide.Virtually all of these abortions can be eliminated if this policy goes into effect, preventing tens of millions of deaths annually.
We would still have abortionsHow so?
It's drastically different from China's one child policy. You can still have kids, you just need to pay for a reversal vastectomy every time you want a kid. You claim that it would result in a loss of life. If anything, my policy prevents life from being killed since it prevents unintended pregnancies, and therefore abortions.Just like the China one child policy! Don’t have kids, or we will brutally murder them.
That is totally a libertarian concept
It's drastically different from China's one child policy. You can still have kids, you just need to pay for a reversal vastectomy every time you want a kid. You claim that it would result in a loss of life. If anything, my policy prevents life from being killed since it prevents unintended pregnancies, and therefore abortions.
Given that it provides freedom for the unborn by preventing them from existing and therefore, preventing their deaths, I'd say it's libertarian. It also liberates the woman from unintended pregnancy once implemented. It frees people up to do sex without the fear of unwanted pregnancy.
Libertarian/authoritarian: 3.23
