I find it inconceivable that you'd want to encourage high risk of stds by advocating something that only prevents pregnancy
It's really rare to find anyone who merely wants to argue for it. Most either keep it to themselves or try to impose their morals on others.
"Morals are a good thing" whose morals, exactly? Let me guess, yours happen to be the correct ones?
Abrahmix religions and Hinduism generally disagree on several moral issues, such as how many gods may be worshiped.
/s (for "scottish")
Fast forward a few centuries and that (very practical) advice has become 'word of god' moralistic. Now with modern birth control we have better ways to avoid pregnancy than abstinence. But (unsurprisingly) the church's practical advice hasn't caught up with modern technology.
/"chewed gum" arguments?
Also regardless of political correctness, the US at least doesn't seem to have any problems ruining young people's lives in order to appease to religious groups demanding to dictate what consenting adults can and can't do to their own bodies.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/30/health/male-birth-control/
I mean, one would think that anyone with the minimum sense of logical thinking would understand that it is way easier to prevent 1 (as one, singular) single egg to get fixated in the uterus during the course of 28 days, than to prevent millions (as in > 1000000) of spermatozoids to be produced every single day.
But perhaps it's just me that actually looked at the obvious numbers...
And in any case, basic biology and the presented numbers still stand as the reality.
It also has literally nothing to do with the thread in question, which is discussing whether one should advocate for these kinds of contraceptives when they may increase the rate of STDs.
The side effects of female hormonal birth control are really bad for plenty of women.
I think you lack at least some grasp of basic statistics.
As for the 99%, just read TFA.
Otherwise: money, sleep, free time, dating pool shrinks significantly, peace of mind, ability to travel
> I don't know what kind of peace of mind you get by living for your own pleasure
> If you're not dedicated to raising others up, either your kids or in some kind of missionary work, then not really sure you can say you're living your life and are doing anything worthwhile
Are you unable to look at life through any lens other than your own? There are lots of different types of people in this world living a myriad of different lifestyles, many of which offer plenty of personal satisfaction, add real value to the world, and should be considered worthwhile. Having kids and doing missionary work might personally give you a sense of self worth, but that doesn't mean there aren't other paths to finding self worth/meaning that aren't just as valid. Your worldview is not the only one that matters.
Yes, having kids brings meaning to a lot of people's lives. It's certainly not the only way to lead a fulfilled life, though. In fact, with populations booming everywhere, I'd say it's a good thing that less people want kids.
I know of many people who DO have kids who are constantly bitching about how annoying it is to have kids. They smile through their teeth and say it's the best thing they've ever done, but it's obvious they're reading the script society has handed them while silently thinking "what the hell have I gotten myself into?"
Nothing wrong with not having kids!
The peace of mind that my non-existent children cannot get hit by a car or get cancer or get killed in Iraq or any of the myriad worries that are at the forefront of every parent's mind.
> On ability to travel: most people eat sleep go to work go to the bathroom and spend time with their families
I'm lucky to have a lot of opportunities by living in a first world country with a high salary and a strong passport. It seems wasteful to give them all up just to live like 'most people'.
That said, you may be surprised to learn you can live a pretty normal life with a child.
My wife and I made the decision not to have children a long time ago, and we don't regret it in the slightest. What we have found, though, is that our friends and co-workers continue to have on-going "problems" with their children.
Issues of sickness, parent-teacher and other school things, dealing with unruliness or other behavioral problems, the on-going costs of raising kids, finding daycare, time off for activities - or simply picking the kids up from school, having to get a more expensive (larger) car(s) because of having a kid (or more kids)...it just goes on and on, all the way through (and sometimes beyond) high school graduation and college. If the parents are lucky, the kid goes to college and moves away. But increasingly, that doesn't seem to be the case - we hear and see about many parents (friends, co-workers, and strangers) whose children stay at home, without a job. So they (the parents) continue to complain about that, wondering when their children will leave, or get a better education, or whatever.
It's gets tiresome after a while; it is also tiresome that you want to tell them about something you bought, or something you're doing or going to do (a vacation, higher education, a new job opportunity, or a business venture) - but you sometimes have to hold back, because you know that you're just throwing it in their faces that "this is what I have, and you don't because you're dealing with your kids".
...then there's the relief we've seen on our friend's and co-worker's faces when they (finally) say that their children have bought a house, and have moved out, or have a job, after graduating college or high-school or whatever; they look like a burden has been lifted from them (while at the same time a bit sad - I imagine because of their kids no longer being around - I can empathize with that).
It seems like children are a double-edged sword. Are there good times and good (great!) experiences to be had with children? Surely! I'll never know the thrill or excitement of teaching my child how to ride a bike, or use powertools, or how to code, or any number of other experiences (and there would be many). But with that loss, I also won't ever know the debt and trials children put parents through, the loss of time and energy, the fear when they don't come home on time.
I and my wife have chosen this; to say our life is abnormal because we came to that decision based on many discussions is to devalue our ability to make our own adult and independent decisions. Similarly, I can't honestly criticise someone for having children. All I do ask is to quit complaining about the decision(s) you made. Because that is the adult thing to do.
The fact is, just by the numbers, having children is normal. But that doesn't mean you should do it!
Fear of it not being as reversible as it was supposed to be would be a pretty good reason not to use this one.
If you're married, with children, and looking for an alternative to vasectomy, that risk is lower in the sense that should the reverse procedure not go as expected, it would probably be less crushing than the same experience as a newlywed.
I can't think of many other situations in which (all else equal) a parent would choose to increase a child's risk of life-altering mistakes because reducing that risk would not reduce other risks as well. Don't tell Becky to brush her teeth; she might just fall down and break them out anyway.
Everyone's child is a special snowflake, but we know abstinence-only education is a failure at reducing unwanted pregnancy and STDs. What it doesn't fail at is increasing human misery by weaponizing moral choices about sex.
The original comment didn't encourage high risk behavior or say anything about ignoring the risk of STDs.
Personally I would preach Condoms over pills (although I freely acknowledge they can fail, and indeed suspect it's even more likely when teens are the ones using them).
Just like you can and should preach the value of abstinence and the consequences of sex to your teen while also teaching about safe(r) sex.