So true. The arguments postulated consistently obscure the social engineer's true intentions on virtually every issue.
Somewhat related, the fear of potentially having a baby was a positive pressure to encourage abstinence and preserve sexual purity. Losing this was a tragedy to society.
The irony is that the end game seems to be depopulation and savage medical interventions. You can't afford birth control (condoms and pills) and you're too stupid to figure out how to use them (particularly of a certain ethnicity this is inferred if not stated plainly by "anti-racists") but, or rather so... here's a free abortion! Problem solved! Oh, and that tissue some consider to be a baby (silly fools), we'll take it, dice it up and run experiments on it and turn it into aesthetic treatments for women in their 50's to attempt to look like they are of childbearing ages. The circular mind fuck of it all...
I'm not sure rebranding would help in the case of birth control. They'd still have to list infertility as an expected side effect, so even from a blank slate point of view, women would still put two and two together. "Doc, are you saying I can't get pregnant for as long as I take this 'acne medication'?" It's an interesting thought, but people aren't so stupid as to not take advantage of off-label uses of a medication.
Adding to that: I think it's probably specious anyway, in the same way arguing for unlimited abortion on the basis of the < 1% of abortions that are medically necessary is specious. There are probably other medications that would do the trick, and if infertility was an undesirable side-effect of an otherwise effective medication, there'd be a lot of money poured into fixing that side-effect. Look at all the effort they put into figuring out how to make pain medication that doesn't get you high.
So true. The arguments postulated consistently obscure the social engineer's true intentions on virtually every issue.
Somewhat related, the fear of potentially having a baby was a positive pressure to encourage abstinence and preserve sexual purity. Losing this was a tragedy to society.
And the argument was often argued from economics. That's what solely prevented me. Thinking I could never afford it.
The irony is that the end game seems to be depopulation and savage medical interventions. You can't afford birth control (condoms and pills) and you're too stupid to figure out how to use them (particularly of a certain ethnicity this is inferred if not stated plainly by "anti-racists") but, or rather so... here's a free abortion! Problem solved! Oh, and that tissue some consider to be a baby (silly fools), we'll take it, dice it up and run experiments on it and turn it into aesthetic treatments for women in their 50's to attempt to look like they are of childbearing ages. The circular mind fuck of it all...
Could never afford birth control or never afford the child?
Either case seems to be severely overhyped.
I'm not sure rebranding would help in the case of birth control. They'd still have to list infertility as an expected side effect, so even from a blank slate point of view, women would still put two and two together. "Doc, are you saying I can't get pregnant for as long as I take this 'acne medication'?" It's an interesting thought, but people aren't so stupid as to not take advantage of off-label uses of a medication.
Adding to that: I think it's probably specious anyway, in the same way arguing for unlimited abortion on the basis of the < 1% of abortions that are medically necessary is specious. There are probably other medications that would do the trick, and if infertility was an undesirable side-effect of an otherwise effective medication, there'd be a lot of money poured into fixing that side-effect. Look at all the effort they put into figuring out how to make pain medication that doesn't get you high.