Wireless Contraception 302
Kittenman writes: The BBC is carrying information on a type of contraception (funded in part by Bill Gates) that takes the form of a microchip, inserted under the skin. The chip releases contraceptive hormones to the body until wirelessly advised not to do so. This device has several interesting applications and issues associated with it. The researchers are already working on making the device secure against unauthorized transmissions. There's also the issue of making it easier for governments to control population levels. The chip will be available from 2018. This correspondent will watch the issues with interest.
Security... (Score:2)
I do not see this ending well.
Re: (Score:2)
There's currently no technology used in medicine because of the constant fear of it 'being hacked'.
Re: (Score:2)
Few of those can be manipulated from the outside while not being under constant supervision in a controlled environment.
Re: (Score:2)
And sarcasm detectors.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoopsie. Sorry, was aiming for the pacemaker.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I gather, this thing is only as wireless as a QI charger is wireless. You basically need to touch it with the "remote" for it to work. If you're point blank range and know exactly where the chip is, you could have done a lot more than just hack the chip...
Re: (Score:2)
Hormones screw up women's bodies to much. (Score:2)
What "they" need to develop is a chip that releases "sperm poison".
Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much. (Score:5, Insightful)
What "they" need to develop is a chip that releases "sperm poison".
Or, you know, a sex education program that's not absolutely retarded.
This is, of course, assuming the end goal is limiting unwanted pregnancies.
Re: (Score:2)
Planned Parenthood chipping up as many poor people as they can, perhaps?
But that would reduce the Democrat Party's base, thus reducing PP's funding. (MOAR illegal immigration!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think that they get funding from poor people?
Government, you ninny.
Anyway, I was being facetious, since the number of poor people is rising.
Good lord (Score:5, Interesting)
First the Nest thermostat is said to be enough to make the Stasi blush, then insurance companies are compared to the Panopticon and now a birth control device is supposedly a government plot to control population levels?
This is supposed to be news for nerds. Not news for delusional paranoiacs.
Re: (Score:2)
This is supposed to be news for nerds. Not news for delusional paranoiacs.
Is there a difference?
Re:Good lord (Score:4, Interesting)
There used to be. I remember when nerds where hopeful and did things. now they just whine into there specialty beer.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you have to admit, we have every right to.
Technology used to be what sets us free, what allows us to go where nobody went before, to soar and climb to new heights, to liberate ourselves and our dreams.
Today, technology is just a tool for oppression and control, to monitor and to invade our privacy. What we loved has turned into what we hate.
Isn't that enough to make someone cry?
Re: (Score:3)
It's increasingly hard to tell the difference.
What would have been dismissed as fodder for paranoid people a decade or so ago, is pretty much common place these days.
Sadly, even the paranoids are all going "holy crap, have you seen this?"
Sometimes, reality is stranger than fiction (or delusion).
Re: (Score:2)
This is supposed to be news for nerds. Not news for delusional paranoiacs.
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if your post history would show you as one of the people claiming that the NSA spying on everyone in the US was just paranoia, or that PRISM and Parallel construction were just delusion.
When these things were found to be true, many of those on that bandwagon changed sides.
An international coalition of governments, companies, philanthropies, and nonprofits recently committed to providing family planning to 120 million more women in the world by 2020.
Of course those Governments, companies, and philanthropists know best how you should plan a family. Considering how the top .01% of the population (which includes those Philanthropists) control the majority of the wealth, they on
Re: (Score:3)
An international coalition of governments, companies, philanthropies, and nonprofits recently committed to providing family planning to 120 million more women in the world by 2020.
Of course those Governments, companies, and philanthropists know best how you should plan a family. Considering how the top .01% of the population (which includes those Philanthropists) control the majority of the wealth, they only have societies best interests in mind right?
"Family planning" is a euphemism for sex education and contraceptive access. Large parts of the world do not provide any sex ed to women at all, even basic stuff like giving them a heads-up before blood starts coming out of their vaginas. Even in the developed world there are many teenagers and young adults whose parents either don't know enough to help, don't want to help, or provide false information when it comes to sex. Family planning services give women the information and tools they need to make thei
Re: (Score:2)
The question today ain't so much whether you're paranoid, it's more whether you're paranoid enough.
I mean, think about it. Ponder that you told someone in 1999 that all our email traffic is monitored by the government, that they log and examine every bit you do on the internet, that they use your cell phone to track your every move and that they basically log, store, monitor and evaluate every kind of communication you do, be it via phone or internet, and that they track what you read, who you talk to, what
Downsides (Score:2)
1 - We still have to transpose a barrier on implanted chips. People don't like this idea.
2 - It can and will be interfered with, and make women pregnant when they don't want to. Even they trying to make the chip hard to interfere with, everybody working with tech knows that is not always possible. And a small chip on the hands of thousands of people will be a valuable target.
3 - It ca
Re: (Score:2)
EMP pulse? What dystopian Matrix-like world do you live in? All of the electronics I have are just fine near microwaves, cell phones, car ignitions, etc. In fact all of those devices CONTAIN computer chips that seem to work fine right where they are.
Re: (Score:2)
EMP pulse? What dystopian Matrix-like world do you live in?
How about an EMP pulse caused by an earth-directed X45-Class solar flare, such as the one that occured in Solar Cycle 23; November 2003, The Carrington event during the Solar Storm of August 1859, the Carrington Class-CME which narrowly missed earth in April of 2014, and numerous similar ones, which have (luckily) not pointed anywhere near earth?
Re: (Score:2)
EMP pulse? What dystopian Matrix-like world do you live in?
No, it's not paranoia. It would be accidental, not some nasty action from any government. EMP can arise from some special situations.
Several years (decades) ago, a design error on a computer power source created an EMP [atarimagazines.com] every time you turned it on. If you left any storage media around, it would corrupt data.
Where I live, there are some devices used to demagnetize smart tags on supermarkets, they create a small EMP too, and could cause problems to the chip.
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, aside from trying to make Aldous Huxley's fantasy a reality, what's the friggin' point?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oral contraception or barrier devices don't work in many parts of the world.
But an electronic device dependent on wireless data signals will? Seems dubious.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, aside from trying to make Aldous Huxley's fantasy a reality, what's the friggin' point?
Citizen, next time you will refer to propoganda material as the blueprint not a fantasy!
Population control, indeed (Score:2)
I replied, "We could change it now. Robots are doing all the work. Human beings -- all human beings -- could now be on perpetual vacation. That's what bugs me. If society had been designed for it somehow, we could all be on vacation instead of on welfare. Everyone on the planet could be living in luxury. Instead, they are planning to kill us off. Did you hear that women were trying to drink the water out of the river? Some people think they're putting contraceptives in the water."
From Manna [marshallbrain.com].
Straight from sci fi (Score:2)
Straight from Hugh Howey's Silo series!
If only... (Score:3)
If only getting pregnant always required long, conscientious, deliberate effort, and avoiding pregnancy were the easy result of one night's drunken whim.
But that's now how it is, and this proposal won't make it so.
New Meaning to Holes in Condems (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can worry all you want about this stuff. You can also worry about alien abduction. It still doesn't make it likely, or even possible.
Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it would be great to have a phone app that tells me whether the women I have just me in a bar has an operational chip implanted. Then I would not have to trust her saying "I'm safe" or that the condom will malfunction.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if avoiding pregnancy is all you're concerned about, it sounds like there's an easy solution: you get the chip.
Re: (Score:2)
But my boys can swim!
Re: (Score:2)
Believe me, I would really like to see a reliable and reversible form of male contraception that didn't require a barrier. Granted, barriers are needed for STD prevention, but once past that point in the relationship (i.e. once we've been able to get tested) it would be really great to be able to just turn off (viable) sperm production entirely... without getting a probably-not-reversible surgical procedure, that is.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason (I am not any form of biologist or doctor), this seems to
Re: (Score:2)
Rich People and Population Control (Score:2)
It seems like if there's one issue that rich people all over the world are throughly obsessed with, it's population control. It's all wrapped up with the future being dominated by visions of eco-doom (e.g Global Warming/Overpopulation/Peak Oil). Nobody can see a different future. It's pathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
Needs FDA *AND* NSA approvals will be required (Score:2)
"Then we have secure encryption. That prevents someone from trying to interpret or intervene between the communications."
The NSA will want a backdoor.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA will want a backdoor.
Then the NSA should just use the backdoor.
Help me find my keys and we'll drive out (Score:2)
I hope Bill Gates is planning to include Kinect technology in a diaphragm.
I'm not going to read TFA, but in my mind, that's totally what's going to happen. I'm boggled by the possibilities.
Why contraception (Score:2)
This chip can be very useful for people who have to take in stuff regularly, like diabetes patients, for medical reasons. No insulin syringe into the leg needed, a simple app on the watch of a diabetes patient is enough. If it has direct access to blood, which I doubt, the chip can even perhaps detect too high blood sugar and automatically react, replacing the function of a pancreas.
Re: (Score:2)
This chip dispenses ludicrously tiny amounts of hormones. You might be able to use it for people who take certain other kinds of medicine regularly - my father is on thyroid pills for the rest of his life, for example, and those might be deliverable by such an implant - but the sheer volume requirements of insulin make it completely impractical for such a use. A single insulin reservoir (for a pump) is bigger than this entire chip, and is only good for a matter of days. Unless the chip could somehow manufac
**implications** not reproductive issues (Score:2)
hey, guys...over here...yeah...**waves arms wildly**
**they have made a microchip that can release hormones and be controlled wirelessly from outside the body**
should it be used for contraception?
hmm interesting question...quick look over there! points away from the fact that we have **wireless hormone-releasing microchips** /joke
endorphins, dopamine, testosterone, adrenaline...
all of these and any other hormone is in play with this technology
so...should it be used for **mind control**?
it's nice that they are working on security, now (Score:2)
sure they could have baked some security in, but that line item got cut in the budget. They'll just glue some encryption on later, it's easy to do.
Already? (Score:4, Interesting)
The researchers are already working on making the device secure against unauthorized transmissions.
You're going to trust your body chemistry (moods, behaviors, etc) to a company that considers security as an afterthought?
Good luck.
Wireless Contraception (Score:2)
...great, totally ineffective unless you have wireless intercourse as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and aside from a straw man/slippery slope argument no one will seriously consider the possibility that they could be mandated for widespread use.
Yes, just like when the government first started messing around with health insurance (tax exempt if the employer pays for it, large employers must pay for it, etc..) it was just a slippery that the government would eventually mandate that every person had health insurance.
So here we are.... using the "just a slippery slope" argument again?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not as bad as the confirmation bias you are using.
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans will probably be split right down the middle between the religious nutjobs and the other nuts that want to implant it into poor people to keep them from breeding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:yes but (Score:4, Insightful)
Then please tell me: how does this decision not apply to any other "sincerely held religious belief of a closely held corporation"? The SCOTUS might say that the decision is only supposed to apply to these particular scenarios, but I can't see how you can distinguish one sincerely held religious belief from another. Unless, of course, you let the government get into the business of deciding which religious beliefs trump which.
Then again, this is already happening, thanks to some enlightened congress critters wanting to legislate Baptist beliefs into government law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:yes but (Score:4, Informative)
The Hobby Lobby case was about a corporation demanding religious freedom to reject paying for the medical care of their employees based on the religious view of the company owners.
It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.
This immediately led to companies saying they also want to claim the right to not hire LGBT people, against Federal laws, because they say so.
Sorry, this isn't 'hyper reactionary', this isn't 'liberal propaganda', this is entirely about the right of religious people to be able to discriminate based on their beliefs -- and somehow expecting it to remain illegal to discriminate against them.
If you think this is such a good ruling, wait until a Muslim business starts saying they don't want to follow laws which violate Sharia law, or that women are required to wear veils if they work for them,
No, this is about asshole Republicans and religious people deciding they should be exempt from the laws of civil society and be able to opt out.
It's you who has no idea of what that case was about.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.
I rest my case.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Me not paying for your stuff is not the same as me keeping you from having it. Everyone knows how HL feels about this now. Seems simple, don't work there if you don't agree.
Re:yes but (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, it's a weird situation, but we have already make people pay for things they don't want. A real big one is war, you are required to pay taxes to support a war. It's irrelevant that you may or may not approve of it, or that you might be against killing people, even if that's your religious belief. You are required to pay for the food for the soldiers, which may involve killing sacred animals. You are also required to pay for courts, that may preside over divorce cases.
That's the real issue, the government can and does make you pay for things you disagree with, and you don't have a say in it (other than your vote). So why can't the government make you pay for health care that you don't agree with? If the receiver disagrees with it, that's usually when your choice comes into play. But we found that doesn't really matter either, for example in a draft. Being against the war doesn't exempt you from being required to kill someone.
Re: (Score:2)
So why can't the government make you pay for health care that you don't agree with?
The government doesnt have the right to do so. The fact that it sometimes (more and more frequently these days) does things that it doesnt have a right to do is not an excuse.
There is a process where the federal government can be granted new rights. This happens only when the States approve a modification to the constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Paying taxes is a little different than paying a third party insurance company isn't it?
Well, in this specific situation, there is a constitutional amendment that bars congress from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of an establishment of religion. This has been narrowed down a bit over the years so the democrats along with the republicans passed a law that said all rules (and yes, the birth control mandate is a r
Re: (Score:3)
Me not paying for your stuff is not the same as me keeping you from having it.
"I'm not denying treatment, I'm denying payment."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Hobby Lobby case was about a corporation demanding religious freedom to reject paying for the medical care of their employees based on the religious view of the company owners.
It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.
The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes. It treats these individuals just like they were still a sole proprietorship or partnership. Simply put, the decision says that if you form a business, you do not give up any rights regardless of the form of that business.
This immediately led to companies saying they also want to claim the right to not hire LGBT people, against Federal laws, because they say so.
That is really surprising. Do you have a citation to support that? I ask, because individuals before the Hobby Lobby case did not h
Re:yes but (Score:4, Interesting)
The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes. It treats these individuals just like they were still a sole proprietorship or partnership. Simply put, the decision says that if you form a business, you do not give up any rights regardless of the form of that business.
Which is why it's a bad ruling. Corporations are a specific grant of public privilege and as such should have different rules than a sole proprietorship or partnership. A corporation is a public institution not a private one and thus has to be held to a higher standard. As a libertarian I completely agree that private institutions should be able to do exactly what the owners of The Hobby Lobby desire, a corporation should not. The correct response would be to revoke their corporate charter and require them to reform as a sole proprietorship or partnership.
Re: (Score:2)
So, can you lose your 4th amendment rights, your right to free speech and your right to due process when the government gives you a license to drive a car? How about for fishing or hunting? Or a permit for installing a pool or addition to your home?
Those are all specific grants of public privilege. Partaking in anything the government offers or provides should in no way result in your loss of constitutionally protected rights or laws on the books. As a libertarian you should be firmly against having to surr
Re: (Score:3)
Fair? ITs freaking constitutionally barred. Should kids give up their rights to not have to pray in order to go to public school? It's the same concept or principle here- they can be home schooled or go to a private school if they don't want to pray to my God right. The government cannot say forget the constitution if you want to do X that we provide. If they did, X would be unconstitutional as well as the violations of the cons
Re: (Score:3)
"The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes.
except you ARE giving up those rights ine xchange for the protection it gives you.
You can't have all the advantage of private ownership and all the advantages of private ownership.
will, Apparently now you can.
LGBT will be next. SO will gay people. I mean, the logic used in the case can be applied to ANY federal law about ANY religious tenant.
Read that
Re: (Score:2)
Corporation - a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
i.e. It's a way for more than one person to own a business.
I'm often surprised at the number of people that will spout off about topics when the don't even know the definitions of the words they're using. If you own a family business and want to share ownership, it has to be a corporation. If it isn't, it will be under the ownership of one family member and there will be a legal a
Re: (Score:3)
They did not ask to be put into the situation where they control the womans healthcare. The government forced them, by law, to provide health care. Then the government forced them, by law, to include contraceptive devices that abort a fertilized fetus. (many of the contraceptive devices covered kill the post-fertilized egg) Their only option out was to pay a fine that would go directly to paying for the very same services they oppose.
From their point of view the government just required them to pay for their employees to have the ability to murder babies. Now, you can disagree with that point of view, I know I do. But it really is their point of view. They really do view it has killing babies. That's a violation of their ability to freely express their religion. The government could have addressed this a dozen different ways. Exempting them from the penalties if they didn't provide the care would have been the simplest. But they didn't. The whitehouse should have seen this coming, they should have provided a religious exemption, but they didn't.
This is getting a bit muddled, so I'd like to list a couple points of fact:
- HL is required to provide healthcare to their employees. The legislation has been enacted, it's a done deal.
- This birth control is part of that healthcare.
Nobody is telling the owners of HL not to use birth control. They have the right to make that choice for themselves.
We are talking about weather HL has the right to selectively refuse to provide this federally mandated medical care coverage to their employees because they (
Re: (Score:3)
...people that run businesses must not be abused by the government and having their freedoms revoked just because they are running a business.
As I mentioned above, the owners of HL are free to use (or not) contraceptives as they choose. Weather they should be required to provide the insurance in the first place is a different matter entirely.
In this case which would you support, the freedom of the employees to make their own choices or the freedom of HL to try to dictate those choices for them?
Re: (Score:3)
The Hobby Lobby case was about a corporation demanding religious freedom to reject paying for the medical care of their employees based on the religious view of the company owners.
It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.
The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes. It treats these individuals just like they were still a sole proprietorship or partnership. Simply put, the decision says that if you form a business, you do not give up any rights regardless of the form of that business.
I have never heard of this case, but you've just described exactly the opposite of 300+ years of corporations. You DO trade in rights as an individual when you form a corporation and you gain tons of rights too - such as protection from personal asset seizure. The whole point of a corporation is that the corporation is separate and distinct from your personal assets and it is NOT a partnership or sole proprietorship that can have assets seized..
The Hobby Lobby case did not bestow religious freedoms on corporations. It did, however, keep the owners of those corporations, if fewer than five individuals from losing their religious freedoms.
Those are the same thing, so it does appears to have bestowed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they want the advantages of being a corporate entity without the limitations? That's reprehensible and indefensible.
advantages? It's required. They'd go bankrupt without it and you know it.
The closest comparison would be the souths Jim Crowe laws from back in the day.
Sure you can vote, you just have to recite the constitution from memory!
Sure you can have religious freedom! You just can't stay in business if you do!
Re: (Score:3)
The Hobby Lobby owners are not forced to pay for other people's contraception out of their own pocket. However, they decided to form a corporation to take advantage of a lot of tax and liability incentives. Apparently, the SCOTUS decided that incorporating is all upside and zero downside.
Can I form a corporation, and, because I sincerely believe that paying taxes is immoral (I'll even provide some documentation that I sincerely believe that), not pay taxes on any money I take in through the corporation?
Yeah
Re: (Score:3)
Now now, you can only discriminate on the basis of your religion if you share the religion of the supreme court justices.
Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists beliefs are still subject to the constitution.
Re:yes but...yes in fact. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:yes but...yes in fact. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Supreme Court majority can't even get their excuses for the Hobby Lobby verdict right. When the verdict came out, they said it was a limited verdict on just those forms of birth control and the form declaring the institution a religious institution was a good workaround. The next day, they said the verdict applies to all forms of birth control. (Apparently, the company just needs to "religiously believe" that something is wrong and they don't need to cover it in their health care plans.) The next day, they made a preliminary ruling in another case that said that the form declaring that an institution has religious issues with something wasn't good. The very form they pointed to 2 days earlier as a good thing. Now, merely requiring an institution to declare "we are religiously offended by X" is offensive.
Of course, Hobby Lobby apparently has no problem covering Viagra regardless of the marital state of their male employees.
I'd boycott Hobby Lobby, but we never shop there anyway as we've known about - and had issues with - the owners making personal religious beliefs into company policy for years. We much prefer Michael's or JoAnn's.
Re:yes but...yes in fact. (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think "boycott" means what you think it does.
Re:yes but...yes in fact. (Score:5, Informative)
It's about more than just "abortifacients".
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
Except, the four methods Hobby Lobby objected to are not "abortifacients".
http://www.newrepublic.com/art... [newrepublic.com]
But I guess, if their faith tells them they're abortifacients, then abortifacients they shall be. Isn't that the whole point of the decision of the five (male) Supreme Court justices?
And we already have cases being brought to use the Hobby Lobby precedent to allow all sorts of civil rights violations, nullification of laws, and even special exemption from taxation based on religious faith. It's going to be a few interesting years until Hobby Lobby is overturned, which it almost certainly will be,
Hobby Lobby is the 21st century's Plessy v. Ferguson. But that's the whole point, right?
It's not their faith telling them they are abortifacients, It is the US Government Department of Health and Human Services. HHS says the 2 IUDs in question and the morning/week after pills in question keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Their faith says that life begins at conception, so being force to pay for something that keeps that life from implanting in the uterus is a violation of their religious belief.
The courts found that since this is a valid religious belief AND the government could provide the 4 questioned contraceptives through other means, that they could not force the owners of Hobby Lobby to violate their religious belief.
Re: (Score:3)
If they were a privately held company and not incorporated, i would not have an issue with the ruling. If you are going to insulate yourself from the company, then your religious beliefs should not dictate what the company denies its employees.
Re: (Score:3)
The courts found that since this is a valid religious belief AND the government could provide the 4 questioned contraceptives through other means
Why are certain beliefs privileged? Could a non-religious person decide they "believed" in not providing certain healthcare to their employees and just let the government pick up the bill instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Hobby Lobby didn't have a problem with contraceptives they were okay with 16 that is currently on the market. They didn't want to support the last four drugs which are abortifacients. Anyways, the ruling was much more. You should read it carefully.
They were okay with the 1,196 that are on the market. It was just the 4, including two types of IUDs that were problematic.
Re: (Score:2)
Hobby Lobby didn't have a problem with contraceptives they were okay with 16 that is currently on the market. They didn't want to support the last four drugs which are abortifacients. Anyways, the ruling was much more. You should read it carefully.
They were okay with the 1,196 that are on the market. It was just the 4, including two types of IUDs that were problematic.
Yes, and then SCOTUS ruled the next day that Catholic-owned corporations can opt out of all birth control.
Re: (Score:2)
And why should I be disallowed removing a parasite from my body?
Re: (Score:2)
You are not disallowed. You just cannot require hobby lobby to pay for the procedure.
That's the biggest lie of this. No one is disallowed anything. All it means if that either you have to pay for it yourself or seek funding from a different source.
But I know what you are doing- parasite.. The problem is the entire concept is so out of whack with reality that no one will be inflamed by your choice of wording.
BTW, Roe V. Wade, the landmark ruling that prohibits government from banning abortions relied primari
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another one is "Open Carry".
Something tells me these courageous members of a well-regulated militia aren't getting any.
http://www.westernjournalism.c... [westernjournalism.com]
http://www.cavemancircus.com/w... [cavemancircus.com]
http://localtvwtvr.files.wordp... [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the woman is also a Glasshole.
Re: (Score:3)
Thankfully you still can't get pregnant when you use the back door.
Re: (Score:3)
Government-supported access to contraception is likely
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this kind of approach is that it basically punishes kids for the mistakes made by their parents.
It would make far more sense to take care of the people who are actually born and maybe try not to have so many that the state ends up having to pay for.
Maybe parents would be more involved in public education if you had to pre-pay 12 years of tuition in order to be allowed to have a child. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the chip's expected lifetime, a woman would have to replace it once, probably sometime in her late twenties, if she wanted to be protected from her teen years until menopause. Never mind the pill; that's a *huge* advantage over the next-longest-lasting implant (three-four years), much less the shots.
Re: (Score:2)