Jessica
Bank killer.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 878
- Reaction score
- 185
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Contraception to reduce cost?
Sounds like eugenics vs the poor to me.
Rockefeller said he was worried about population control and how it ruins his way of life. I think if too many people are ruining the way of life, he should kill himself.
So you would rather pay for their unwanted pregnancy with WIC, food stamps, childcare, welfare, section 8(becuase they are more qualified as a single parent), and child tax credits? FYI- you are already paying for their irresponsiblity by much, much, much more.
Also- I am not necessarily for spending all that money on birth control, but I would like to see the government help to make it more affordable and available to low income families and those without insurance.
As to "not wanting to" use them. My freaking tax dollars shouldn't be going to paying for your wife to get birth control because "you don't want" to use condoms because they're inconvient or it feels better without them.
If my tax dollars go towards preventing one teenage girls chance at a life not hobbled by an unexpected or unwanted child, perhpas giving her a chance at a full education or a full life, or if they keep one unwanted child from coming into this earth to live a life of sickness, starvation, and not having a chance to live a productive life then it is money well spent. Money better spent there than countless other facets of our government spending, there is a lot of spending that is MUCH more problematic than birth control. Maybe that money would be better off propping up some banking giant so that they can afford to buy out another competitor? Maybe it is better off funding lavish corporate getaways and expenditures. <shrug>
Let concerned private citizens "invest" their money and labor.Contraceptives for the poor or financially disadvantaged is a good investment. Anti-Choice overpopulationists deny the actual cost of children.
..
It's not about the money or being lazy, people in commited relationships simply do not want to use condoms. If they have been tested, there is absolutely no need for them and seeing how they are $6 a 3 pack- For people having sex atleast once a day that's over $60/month.
How much more affordable can FREE CONDOMS at your local clinic and $12 a pack at your local pharmacy get? Seriously do I have to deliver the condoms straight to their houses too so they don't spend money on gas or bus fare?
Ahem, why are the states subsidizing condom use in the first place? What legitimate reason exists for any unit of government to subsidize condom use?
Ahem, why are the states subsidizing condom use in the first place? What legitimate reason exists for any unit of government to subsidize condom use?
Technically they aren't specifically subsidizing condoms. The costs for distribution are attached to sexual education programs in schools. The "freebie" box in the school clinic are funded under the sex ed. program.
STD prevention would be a good reason to promote condom. Use.
So, WHICH ONE government dollars subsidizing WHICH ONE government-run sex ed programs that distribute condoms for free...but that's not a WHICH ONE government subsidy?
You're not serious, are you?
Subsidize versus promote...
Did you unknowingly shift the goal posts or was it deliberate?
Maybe you can answer the question that I had asked?
It doesn't matter to my question what unit of government is doing the subsidizing. There is no state versus federal angle. I am asking about government.
What legitmate reason is there for government to subsidize comdom use?
It's not about the money or being lazy, people in commited relationships simply do not want to use condoms. If they have been tested, there is absolutely no need for them and seeing how they are $6 a 3 pack- For people having sex atleast once a day that's over $60/month. \
Twas part of the fun my dear.
So you would rather pay for their unwanted pregnancy with WIC, food stamps, childcare, welfare, section 8(becuase they are more qualified as a single parent), and child tax credits? FYI- you are already paying for their irresponsiblity by much, much, much more.
Well you can substract 5-7 days from that since women do not ovulate during menses.
Untrue; women can ovulate any time.
True, it's so rare that one gets pregnant from having sex while menstruating that most of us just consider those days freebies, but that does not mean it's impossible.
It can happen, and it does. It's not in fact safe to have unprotected sex while menstruating, or at any other time.
Hell, you're not supposed to be ovulating while lactating, but guess how many of us here got pregnant while breastfeeding a baby, and ended up with Irish twins- me and at least two others that I know of.
That's a high percentage, considering how few women there actually are on this forum.
Teenagers? But hey 1069 here I'll explain why your 'once' basically solidifies my case :
If you who, during your young years, were not the most responsible of people only managed to get pregnant ONCE then how does that justify spending literally hundreds of millions because people are too lazy to go pick up condoms?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?