We do. It’s called The Pill.
Which I have to be under a doctors care for and have to go every year, yadda yadda. This should be an option for girls starting at puberty and it should be easy to get.
But yeah, we do have it.
Also, the Pill doesn’t always work…
(I guess non-ovulation wouldn’t always work, as there would be some risk of ectopic pregnancies…)
Asimov’s idea was for an actual change in the nature of the human species…and only in response to someone who challenged him to suggest one. Still, it was the only specific major change in the nature of humanity he could think of as an unalloyed good thing.
(Doggone, I miss that bloke!)
This is also a place where I think the Catholic Church has really missed the boat. I respect that they want to hold to the touchstones and standards of our essential nature, in response to the risk of losing our fundamental humanity. But we’ve had the Pill for sixty-odd years, and our core humanity is not imperiled in any significant way by it.
(Nor, come to think of it, by divorce.)
I see so many negative responses to futuristic ideas. While new ideas are not always great ones and “progress” can have unexpected consequences, it strikes me that most people could and should be more open-minded and imaginative about the positive possibilities.
On a different topic, most people I have asked about “vat-grown” meat lean toward the negative, even when I asked what I consider highly intelligent folks.
With regard to spoilage, I feel we are moving toward being able to repair as well as fully detect any damage before starting the reproduction process.
If already adolescent, has she mentioned anything about getting a mild buzz from seeing static sparks? 
Here’s an old-fashioned thought:
Whenever possible, a child deserves to know she/he was the result of a loving union of two people - his/her parents.
Yes, yes, it won’t always work, and I consider it wonderful that children can be had by those who will love them, regardless of sexual issues.
But still, it would be nice.
To deliberately make that impossible would be obscene.
Wouldn’t a proposal like this (if the technology didn’t make it currently less effective and more costly) actually increase the odds of children being the result of the loving union of two people who actually chose to bring that child in to the world together?
Why is Gattica and “three clam shells” running through my mind right now?
Wouldn’t be in favour of a full IVF world.
Agree that IUI is a pain in the arse - the clinic we went to didn’t even have a proper room - I was expected to give sample in the disabled toilet :eek:
Then it failed anyway…
Isnt this partly what the whole gay lifestyle is about?
I mean with a hetero couple the issue of pregnancy is always on the back of your mind when having sex and should be part of the choice when choosing a sexual partner. Yes you use contraception but then their is always a failure rate. Now with gays and lesbians the thought never will ever cross your mind and sexual focus becomes solely on pleasure where the only worry is disease, physical harm, or emotional issues. All 3 very big but still one less thing to worry about.
Just a note: there’s no such thing as a “gay lifestyle.” It’s just a lifestyle like straights, waiters, the elderly, sisters, and priests live. They’re no different from anyone else.
People who don’t want kids are instead “opting” for “the gay lifestyle”?
What does this post even mean?
I’m snipped. I have no worries. Now if only I could find a partner. 
what would be even better is everyone being sterilized in their youth.
then after reaching adulthood and successfully having lifestyle and parenting classes along with showing financial ability then you would get custody of a clone. this clone would be available in varieties of shapes, sizes and colors which have been breed for good physical and intellectual character with good lifelong health prospects.
if you mess up then you loose custody of the clone.
No, your missing my point. Part of the gay lifestyle is sexual expression without worry about pregnancy. Havent there been some sex education people who said we should be encouraging same-sex sex with the youth because it would result in fewer accidental pregnancies?
I know on another board a gay high school male wanted to opt out of his schools required sex ed classes because he said because he was gay it was impossible for him to ever need to worry about pregnancy and he wanted a different sex ed that was just about male-male sex.
The phrase “the gay lifestyle” is often used in a disparaging way. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed that, so here you are, now you know.
Gay people do already have to use alternative conception methods, so I see where you’re coming from. But I don’t see any gay people saying they’re so great that they wish everyone had to do the same.
I don’t know that I agree this would ever really catch on. I think it’s a bad idea for a number of reasons. First, it disconnects procreation from the instinct of procreation, which could (would?) have significant ecological and social impact. It also creates a framework in which it is necessary to rely either upon the government or medical industry to facilitate procreation. How could this possibly be a good thing? If the choice is completely in the hands of the consumer it’s one thing, but introducing cost and bureaucracy to procreation couldn’t possibly be good. Also, delaying parenthood till middle age (for example) would also have significant societal repercussions that I doubt would be positive. Parenting is very much a younger person’s enterprise, which is very likely the reason nature has designed our bodies to favor procreation when we are younger.