It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Rolls Back Obama’s Birth Control Coverage Rule

page: 13
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

It'll be interesting to see if abortions increase as a result of government not paying for birth control, since government will pay for abortions.




posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well if you were science minded in this debate rather than a moralist you would come to the hypothesis that yes it will. By the data.

The reality is this will effect the south the most.
edit on 7-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well if you were science minded in this debate rather than a moralist you would come to the hypothesis that yes it will. By the data.

The reality is this will effect the south the most.


What does it say about the moral character of a person that would kill an unborn child rather than pay for birth control?

Now I'm married, but even when I was single, sex wasn't a mandatory activity. It's always been optional.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well if you were science minded in this debate rather than a moralist you would come to the hypothesis that yes it will. By the data.

The reality is this will effect the south the most.


What does it say about the moral character of a person that would kill an unborn child rather than pay for birth control?

Now I'm married, but even when I was single, sex wasn't a mandatory activity. It's always been optional.


I don't really care. It makes zero difference if you sincerely care about the unborn children.

I have three kids and am a prolife agnostic. Bit also a realist and don't concern myself with people I don't know assumed morals.

I do know the free birth control stoped abortion and the 5 cents a person it costs society saves far more than that in social services later.


edit on 7-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Just to clarify there is no moral difference in allowing abortions or taking away a control method proven to work that lowers abortions.

Morals are opinions. Reality is reality. A moral opinion is of no use when society already has dictated the morality for abortions through law.

You pay no matter what. Pills a far cheaper than dss.

The same moral judgement of a person getting an abortion or not getting birth control.

There is no difference in this.

The hope the supreme court will turn over the legal precedence of r v wade is unrealistic.


edit on 7-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Government does not determine morality.

However, it may reflect the morality of any given time period.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well if you were science minded in this debate rather than a moralist you would come to the hypothesis that yes it will. By the data.

The reality is this will effect the south the most.



Now I'm married, but even when I was single, sex wasn't a mandatory activity. It's always been optional.


So has eating too much bad food and smoking and drinking too much alcohol. All those things are not mandatory, and they have consequences like heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. - and yet health insurance covers the cost of all those consequences of these non-mandatory lifestyle choices.

Maybe if employers stop paying for health care for these health conditions and force people to pay out of their own pocket, it will stop those people from continuing their stupid vices, huh?



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: luthier

Government does not determine morality.

However, it may reflect the morality of any given time period.


Yes,..

But reality is taking away free birth control will elevate abortions and unwanted children which is a far bigger cost and detriment than a very small tax. One that makes a direct impact.

And ps those that pretend to never have a lack of judgement moment are usually the biggest culprits.
edit on 7-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
The funny thing is that my insurance won't pay for condoms and I'm not allowed to get reimbursed for them from my HSA.



A person man or woman that cant afford a condom should not be having sex. Its basic economics.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: JIMC5499
The funny thing is that my insurance won't pay for condoms and I'm not allowed to get reimbursed for them from my HSA.



A person man or woman that cant afford a condom should not be having sex. Its basic economics.


It's also not a reality



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

2 points.

1. You assume that abortions will increase. It may. But that says more about the people getting abortions than anything else.

2. The birth control was never free. It was never five cents. From the government that gave us the 500.00 dollar hammer to the 3,000 dollar toilet, don't say that it was free.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well if you were science minded in this debate rather than a moralist you would come to the hypothesis that yes it will. By the data.

The reality is this will effect the south the most.



Now I'm married, but even when I was single, sex wasn't a mandatory activity. It's always been optional.


So has eating too much bad food and smoking and drinking too much alcohol. All those things are not mandatory, and they have consequences like heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. - and yet health insurance covers the cost of all those consequences of these non-mandatory lifestyle choices.

Maybe if employers stop paying for health care for these health conditions and force people to pay out of their own pocket, it will stop those people from continuing their stupid vices, huh?


Time to bust out Joe's Garage.

Bring Out the Central Scrutinizer.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well if you were science minded in this debate rather than a moralist you would come to the hypothesis that yes it will. By the data.

The reality is this will effect the south the most.



Now I'm married, but even when I was single, sex wasn't a mandatory activity. It's always been optional.


So has eating too much bad food and smoking and drinking too much alcohol. All those things are not mandatory, and they have consequences like heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. - and yet health insurance covers the cost of all those consequences of these non-mandatory lifestyle choices.

Maybe if employers stop paying for health care for these health conditions and force people to pay out of their own pocket, it will stop those people from continuing their stupid vices, huh?


Health insurance is a commodity, like anything else.

You play, you pay.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

One the data shows it will. That it is more probable and again nature doesn't care about your morals. I happen to value them but I am not god of nature.

2. Birth control paid for by society is far cheaper than the abortions and the effect of unwanted children and juvenile delinquency.

Maybe some of these people having babies also had terrible parents and have no moral foundation. It's nice you can judge them but it's not a reality. The reality is their crap cashier job let them get birth control.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well if you were science minded in this debate rather than a moralist you would come to the hypothesis that yes it will. By the data.

The reality is this will effect the south the most.



Now I'm married, but even when I was single, sex wasn't a mandatory activity. It's always been optional.


So has eating too much bad food and smoking and drinking too much alcohol. All those things are not mandatory, and they have consequences like heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. - and yet health insurance covers the cost of all those consequences of these non-mandatory lifestyle choices.

Maybe if employers stop paying for health care for these health conditions and force people to pay out of their own pocket, it will stop those people from continuing their stupid vices, huh?


Health insurance is a commodity, like anything else.

You play, you pay.


Not if it's compulsory.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

If you eat lots of bacon and get cancer, you should pay for the treatment out of your own pocket. I don't want to pay for your bad choices.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Everyone judges everyone else.

You're judging me because of my opinion.

I have my own opinion and judge accordingly.

*shrug*

It's human nature.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DBCowboy

If you eat lots of bacon and get cancer, you should pay for the treatment out of your own pocket. I don't want to pay for your bad choices.


THANK YOU!

FINALLY!

8whew*

(it took long enough)

This is the result of government care. This attitude. This intrusion.

Back in the day, if I did something, I paid for it. I owned it.

Now?

Everyone can get into everyone's private business because everyone pays for everyone else. This is what I absolutely detest about universal care.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Sure. I think your stubborn and unwilling to look at the evidence objectively. But I value your morals. It's not that I disagree. I just know the entire world didn't grow up like me.

I watched an NFL documentary showing how some of these guys have never had an actual place to live and steady food supply until college. I am supposed to judge them the same as Bobby trustfund who has his girlfriend get an abortion so he can get a law degree?

Reality is reality. If you making a less probable decision that abortion won't go up for a perceived moral superiority it's hard to justify logically. That is all I am saying.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

What are you talking about? With private insurance, everyone pays into the pool, so everyone pays for everyone else.That's how it works, and it shouldn't be anyone's business what anyone is doing. You just pay into the system and get your healthcare paid, no matter how you live. Whether you eat bacon or whether you have pre-marital sex.




top topics



 
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join