I think it's .15% over it's lifetime(http://www.malehealthcenter.com/c_vasectomy.html). The majority of these failures are right after the vastectomy when sperm is still present in the penis. This can be solved by either waiting 3 months or jerking off 20x, whichever comes first. Given that guys like to jerk off, I imagine the latter would be preferred, but either works.
I think the vas deferens only reconnect if you get the surgery for it.
Abstinence is 100% effective and I want to be abstinent until marriage to avoid STDs and pregnancy. I can't count on other people to be abstinent. I can however count on males to get vasectomies before they have sex if their girlfriends go on a sex strike until their BFs get a vastectomy. Once this is obtained and the sperm is out, then they can have unrestricted sex with no condoms and not get the girl pregnant because of the vastectomy.
I think most women don't think of telling their pro life boyfriends to get vasectomies. I wouldn't call them dumb. If they are given the idea, I think almost every girl will require vasectomies before they agree to sex.
"Women can already decide for themselves not to have sex with men unless they have a vasectomy. "
Yeah, but giving women the idea to go on sex strikes until their partner gets a reversible vastectomy is an idea that I don't think the women thought of. If women get this idea, vasectomies would skyrocket and abortions would fall.
"Freedom comes with extra responsibility but its worth it"
If the girl gets pregnant, then this results in abortion. I wouldn't count on people getting vasectomies on their own; it's been tried for a long time, it hasn't yielded results that result in abortion decreases; contraception has been causing much of the abortion decline. A vastectomy is cheaper, simpler, and less painful then an unwanted pregnancy. If we're going to mandate unwanted pregnancies (which I think we should do, I'm pro life), then mandating vasectomies is consistent pro life ethic.
"What if they're indifferent about having kids."
If they want a kid and their husband wants a kid, they get the vastectomy reversed when they're ready for it.
>> "Except this is the U.S. and mandatory vasectomies don't make sense."
Why not? It's easier to force vasectomies to prevent abortions than it is to force a female to be pregnant for 9 months. Vasectomies are reversible too, so when every male worldwide gets a vastectomy, they reverse the vastectomy when they and their wife are ready to have a kid. They reinstate the vastectomy as soon as their wife conceived. Unintended pregnancies and abortions become virtually non existent.
If we can force a female to not have abortions, even though there are ways which she can get around it, can we force all males to get vasectomies? It's easier to accomplish this than to eliminate abortions from banning them. To get males to get vasectomies, the government encourages females not wanting to conceive a kid to go on a sex strike until the male gets a vastectomy and passes the sperm free test. Since no female wants an unintended pregnancy, going on a sex strike has a history of resolving stuff, since most guys are close to addicted to sex.
Condoms are 98% effective for one use, assuming you use it correctly, but if you have sex 100 times, which 26% of couples do in 2 years the odds of at least one condom failing are:
.98^100= 13.26%
Vasectomies on the other hand, have a lifetime success rate of 99.8% when you wait 3 months or ejaculate 20x, whichever comes first. Sounds like mandatory vasectomies seem better than mandatory childbirth in an effort to eliminate abortions. I want to get one by the time I'm 19 on my own, and I hope other pro lifers do the same. Vasectomies are reversible, so you reverse the vastectomy for enough time to have the kid when your ready for a kid, and then you reinstate the vastectomy right after.
If your a girl, don't want to get pregnant, but like having sex, require that your boyfriend or husband gets a vastectomy first and ejaculate 25 times first to get the remaining sperm out of his penis before you have any sex with him to avoid pregnancy. Then abortions are gone and people can still lay each other whenever they feel like it in the long term.
Many lefties came up with the idea sarcastically, but I think it's honestly a good idea.
https://facts.net/history/culture/adoption-facts says that 80% of foster kids get adopted within 5 years. The quote I found is:
"Nearly one in five children in this system remains in foster care for five years or more before being adopted."
This was the least promising stat I found about this.
https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics states that 89% of foster kids get adopted within 5 years. The quote I found is:
"11 percent spend 5 years or more waiting for a family"
Of course the system is going to display their stats in a negative way, but if an overwhelming majority of foster kids get adopted within 5 years, and some get adopted beyond 5 years, it would seem that the foster kids end up fine.
"If all people are equally valuable (and we assume a fetus is a person), how can one person living off the body of another (without consent) be justified?"
Because the fetus can't control the fact that their life is dependant on someone else. People who are on welfare live off of the resources of people who aren't on welfare without their inherit consent, just as what a fetus does with a woman. Does this mean that we kill people on welfare? No. Same applies to a fetus. Being dependant on someone without their consent is not worthy of a death sentence.
If you make it unrated, I might accept. I don't think it's worth $100 billion just to mine asteroids if the resources can't be used on Earth. They could be used in space, but for what exactly?
Once these metals are discovered in large quantities, then they would lose all their rarity based value. They might be valuable for other reasons though, such as being usable in building things, like steel.
I think a lot of these precious metals would lose most of their value due to inflation. It happened with Spain when they mined the Americas for silver. If we mine asteroids, we should extract metals that would be extrinsically useful, meaning they can be used for things. Gold and platinum are only valuable because they are rare. Iron, Copper, and Aluminium on the other hand can be used but they are common on Earth. If they are common enough on Earth, we don't have to go to space to get them.
I think donating part of your liver is harder than donating blood. I mean, if that's the option someone wants to take to save another life (which they would have to do if they committed or were responsible for an abortion), then fine, but I think most people would rather donate some blood than part of their liver. How does bone marrow, semen, and hair save someone's life? I can see how breast milk would, but I don´t think feeding someone, even if that someone is a baby should count as saving their life. People always find ways to obtain food and a newborn can nurse from someone able and willing or can use baby formula.
Since I think everyone who can be an organ donor should be required to be an organ donor, I don't think organs can be used as an alternative to blood donation, unless it's a kidney, which donating a kidney is probably harder than donating 480 ml of blood. Even if you disagree with this, 1 organ donor can save only 8 lives, and under this system, to be an abortion doctor, you have to save a life for every abortion you perform. This only enables a doctor to perform 8 abortions in their life. The rest of the abortions would have to be paid for by donating blood unless there is a better idea.
I would only have murderers, rapists, and abortion doctors donate blood to different degrees. 60,000 people die per year because they can't get enough blood. I figured these lives and others internationally can be saved by forcing bad people to donate blood. I think if the felon's blood is safe, then it can be donated, some felons have unusable blood, some do. I wouldn't say that donating blood is something anyone wants to do; they merely tolerate it in an effort to save up to 3 people. If an STD prevents a felon from donating blood, then I would treat that STD in order to obtain the blood if possible. It helps the felon, but it's better than the alternative of getting no blood from them. I don't think abortion doctors would drop significantly. They would probably be fine with donating blood every 3 months as part of their regulation, especially if it prevents Roe V Wade from getting overturned because even if your pro life, the notion that they would be saving a life for every one they take would make them fine with abortions under such situations.
My solution would be to hire more doctors so the doctors can only perform abortions every 45 days so they can keep up with it from a blood standpoint. 1 pint of blood saves 2 people. The doctors in the meantime would be doing other things that are bipartisan, like contraception, STD testing, etc.
It´s 240 ml of blood. People often donate a 480 ml of blood and they don´t pass out. The doctors won't be likely to pass out if others can donate double the blood and survive with only minor temporary effects.
I didn't get the reply. What if the doctor just donated enough blood to save someone else (240 ml)? An eye for an eye; you take a life, you save a life. The left might agree to it too.
I think nuclear power should be legal but regulated. Even nuclear advocates say it should be regulated, and heavily. It is something that requires a lot of permits to make sure it´s done in a safe way, but it works in giving about 20% of the US electricity. Compared to coal, it´s a very safe place to work, with 99.9% less deaths. The experts take care of everything that could go wrong with the plant.
It depends. If someone can´t depend on themselves, then yes. But if you can depend on yourself, then no. Both liberals and conservatives agree with this. The thing is, what counts as being able to work? I have a lenient definition. Anyone who isin´t both severely physically and mentally disabled while out of school should have a job and should not receive welfare.
Earth has more natural resources than asteroids do because earth is so huge by comparison. That doesn't mean we can access all the natural resources in the earth. When earth runs out of natural resources, then we can mine asteroids for things, but since earth is so big, I don't see that happening soon.
We should be giving PR more money though. They needed $90 billion and they got half that. Any state would have gotten more if they were in that situation. Gotta be consistent.
I used to support the death penalty, but I favor life in jail without parole and the convict must donate blood every 3 months to save more lives. They killed 1. Now, they should save dozens more.
What does this mean?
Who is this guy?
"Vasectomies have a typical failure rate of 1%. "
I think it's .15% over it's lifetime(http://www.malehealthcenter.com/c_vasectomy.html). The majority of these failures are right after the vastectomy when sperm is still present in the penis. This can be solved by either waiting 3 months or jerking off 20x, whichever comes first. Given that guys like to jerk off, I imagine the latter would be preferred, but either works.
I think the vas deferens only reconnect if you get the surgery for it.
I'm agnostic, but Jesus probably did exist as a person.
Abstinence is 100% effective and I want to be abstinent until marriage to avoid STDs and pregnancy. I can't count on other people to be abstinent. I can however count on males to get vasectomies before they have sex if their girlfriends go on a sex strike until their BFs get a vastectomy. Once this is obtained and the sperm is out, then they can have unrestricted sex with no condoms and not get the girl pregnant because of the vastectomy.
I think most women don't think of telling their pro life boyfriends to get vasectomies. I wouldn't call them dumb. If they are given the idea, I think almost every girl will require vasectomies before they agree to sex.
"Women can already decide for themselves not to have sex with men unless they have a vasectomy. "
Yeah, but giving women the idea to go on sex strikes until their partner gets a reversible vastectomy is an idea that I don't think the women thought of. If women get this idea, vasectomies would skyrocket and abortions would fall.
"Freedom comes with extra responsibility but its worth it"
If the girl gets pregnant, then this results in abortion. I wouldn't count on people getting vasectomies on their own; it's been tried for a long time, it hasn't yielded results that result in abortion decreases; contraception has been causing much of the abortion decline. A vastectomy is cheaper, simpler, and less painful then an unwanted pregnancy. If we're going to mandate unwanted pregnancies (which I think we should do, I'm pro life), then mandating vasectomies is consistent pro life ethic.
"What if they're indifferent about having kids."
If they want a kid and their husband wants a kid, they get the vastectomy reversed when they're ready for it.
>> "Except this is the U.S. and mandatory vasectomies don't make sense."
Why not? It's easier to force vasectomies to prevent abortions than it is to force a female to be pregnant for 9 months. Vasectomies are reversible too, so when every male worldwide gets a vastectomy, they reverse the vastectomy when they and their wife are ready to have a kid. They reinstate the vastectomy as soon as their wife conceived. Unintended pregnancies and abortions become virtually non existent.
If we can force a female to not have abortions, even though there are ways which she can get around it, can we force all males to get vasectomies? It's easier to accomplish this than to eliminate abortions from banning them. To get males to get vasectomies, the government encourages females not wanting to conceive a kid to go on a sex strike until the male gets a vastectomy and passes the sperm free test. Since no female wants an unintended pregnancy, going on a sex strike has a history of resolving stuff, since most guys are close to addicted to sex.
Condoms are 98% effective for one use, assuming you use it correctly, but if you have sex 100 times, which 26% of couples do in 2 years the odds of at least one condom failing are:
.98^100= 13.26%
Vasectomies on the other hand, have a lifetime success rate of 99.8% when you wait 3 months or ejaculate 20x, whichever comes first. Sounds like mandatory vasectomies seem better than mandatory childbirth in an effort to eliminate abortions. I want to get one by the time I'm 19 on my own, and I hope other pro lifers do the same. Vasectomies are reversible, so you reverse the vastectomy for enough time to have the kid when your ready for a kid, and then you reinstate the vastectomy right after.
If your a girl, don't want to get pregnant, but like having sex, require that your boyfriend or husband gets a vastectomy first and ejaculate 25 times first to get the remaining sperm out of his penis before you have any sex with him to avoid pregnancy. Then abortions are gone and people can still lay each other whenever they feel like it in the long term.
Many lefties came up with the idea sarcastically, but I think it's honestly a good idea.
Thoughts?
https://facts.net/history/culture/adoption-facts says that 80% of foster kids get adopted within 5 years. The quote I found is:
"Nearly one in five children in this system remains in foster care for five years or more before being adopted."
This was the least promising stat I found about this.
https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics states that 89% of foster kids get adopted within 5 years. The quote I found is:
"11 percent spend 5 years or more waiting for a family"
Of course the system is going to display their stats in a negative way, but if an overwhelming majority of foster kids get adopted within 5 years, and some get adopted beyond 5 years, it would seem that the foster kids end up fine.
I feel like reviving this debate, but it's what adoption is for.
I agree.
Since you read the debate, are you leading by example?
"If all people are equally valuable (and we assume a fetus is a person), how can one person living off the body of another (without consent) be justified?"
Because the fetus can't control the fact that their life is dependant on someone else. People who are on welfare live off of the resources of people who aren't on welfare without their inherit consent, just as what a fetus does with a woman. Does this mean that we kill people on welfare? No. Same applies to a fetus. Being dependant on someone without their consent is not worthy of a death sentence.
Another one bites the dust. You vs oromagi on something would be fun. Your both undefeated.
Your probably support Trump's wall. Are you interested?
If we have open borders, we should ban welfare too.
My stance on immigration is basically the same as Ronald Reagan's. Open the border both ways.
I think Trump being a Russian asset might be a rumor; it’s like saying that Obama was born in Africa. Is there evidence to back it up?
I only felt comfortable doing something like this on a fourm. Should I invite disgusted? You two rapping would be interesting.
If God exists, he doesn't meet the 4 Os.
If you make it unrated, I might accept. I don't think it's worth $100 billion just to mine asteroids if the resources can't be used on Earth. They could be used in space, but for what exactly?
Once these metals are discovered in large quantities, then they would lose all their rarity based value. They might be valuable for other reasons though, such as being usable in building things, like steel.
How would you solve the inflation problem that would rise with mining rare metals from asteroids? I doubt your opponent would respond.
This isn't me, but some people are pro choice exclusively because setting the kid up for adoption messes up the kid. What's your response to this?
I think a lot of these precious metals would lose most of their value due to inflation. It happened with Spain when they mined the Americas for silver. If we mine asteroids, we should extract metals that would be extrinsically useful, meaning they can be used for things. Gold and platinum are only valuable because they are rare. Iron, Copper, and Aluminium on the other hand can be used but they are common on Earth. If they are common enough on Earth, we don't have to go to space to get them.
I hope singularity is right. I don't ever want to die.
Add in your description: Likely- meaning 50% chance or higher or some percentage like that.
Define possible. Anything´s possible, but how probable is this idea?
I think donating part of your liver is harder than donating blood. I mean, if that's the option someone wants to take to save another life (which they would have to do if they committed or were responsible for an abortion), then fine, but I think most people would rather donate some blood than part of their liver. How does bone marrow, semen, and hair save someone's life? I can see how breast milk would, but I don´t think feeding someone, even if that someone is a baby should count as saving their life. People always find ways to obtain food and a newborn can nurse from someone able and willing or can use baby formula.
I only know one song that they play, so I'm not sure.
Since I think everyone who can be an organ donor should be required to be an organ donor, I don't think organs can be used as an alternative to blood donation, unless it's a kidney, which donating a kidney is probably harder than donating 480 ml of blood. Even if you disagree with this, 1 organ donor can save only 8 lives, and under this system, to be an abortion doctor, you have to save a life for every abortion you perform. This only enables a doctor to perform 8 abortions in their life. The rest of the abortions would have to be paid for by donating blood unless there is a better idea.
I would only have murderers, rapists, and abortion doctors donate blood to different degrees. 60,000 people die per year because they can't get enough blood. I figured these lives and others internationally can be saved by forcing bad people to donate blood. I think if the felon's blood is safe, then it can be donated, some felons have unusable blood, some do. I wouldn't say that donating blood is something anyone wants to do; they merely tolerate it in an effort to save up to 3 people. If an STD prevents a felon from donating blood, then I would treat that STD in order to obtain the blood if possible. It helps the felon, but it's better than the alternative of getting no blood from them. I don't think abortion doctors would drop significantly. They would probably be fine with donating blood every 3 months as part of their regulation, especially if it prevents Roe V Wade from getting overturned because even if your pro life, the notion that they would be saving a life for every one they take would make them fine with abortions under such situations.
Do something rock and roll.
My solution would be to hire more doctors so the doctors can only perform abortions every 45 days so they can keep up with it from a blood standpoint. 1 pint of blood saves 2 people. The doctors in the meantime would be doing other things that are bipartisan, like contraception, STD testing, etc.
It´s 240 ml of blood. People often donate a 480 ml of blood and they don´t pass out. The doctors won't be likely to pass out if others can donate double the blood and survive with only minor temporary effects.
I didn't get the reply. What if the doctor just donated enough blood to save someone else (240 ml)? An eye for an eye; you take a life, you save a life. The left might agree to it too.
Everything that is banned needs a punishment, otherwise what's the point of making it illegal. Would you punish abortion?
I think nuclear power should be legal but regulated. Even nuclear advocates say it should be regulated, and heavily. It is something that requires a lot of permits to make sure it´s done in a safe way, but it works in giving about 20% of the US electricity. Compared to coal, it´s a very safe place to work, with 99.9% less deaths. The experts take care of everything that could go wrong with the plant.
It depends. If someone can´t depend on themselves, then yes. But if you can depend on yourself, then no. Both liberals and conservatives agree with this. The thing is, what counts as being able to work? I have a lenient definition. Anyone who isin´t both severely physically and mentally disabled while out of school should have a job and should not receive welfare.
If we let the murderer live, we can take their blood and that can save hundreds of more lives per murderer. So lets abolish the death penalty.
Earth has more natural resources than asteroids do because earth is so huge by comparison. That doesn't mean we can access all the natural resources in the earth. When earth runs out of natural resources, then we can mine asteroids for things, but since earth is so big, I don't see that happening soon.
I think most resources we can get from asteroids can be obtained on Earth, without the cost to get there and to ship them to earth.
Spaniard is one type of Hispanic. Native Spaniards are also white. It´s possible to be all white and all hispanic.
White Hispanics are still Hispanics, so most puerto ricans are white.
Since most of PR´s population is white, even whiter than the US, how could Trump not giving them funds be a racist act?
We should be giving PR more money though. They needed $90 billion and they got half that. Any state would have gotten more if they were in that situation. Gotta be consistent.
Are you bilingual?
I used to support the death penalty, but I favor life in jail without parole and the convict must donate blood every 3 months to save more lives. They killed 1. Now, they should save dozens more.