If you get free birth control, I should get free beer

page: 8
37
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by seamus
Just stickin my nose in where it doesn't belong:

Where? Mostly inner cities and poor rural areas (such as the one where I have recently moved to). You don't need statistics when every time you get in line at the grocery store, the single woman (no wedding band) in front of you with three kids in tow gets out her "EBT" card to pay for her food.


No prob - - its an open discussion board.

A single woman does not mean she is intentionally pumping out kids to get support.

I personally do not support any free handouts - - as "what is not earned - has no value". I do support Hand Ups.

I personally would create an all encompassing warehouse with only approved food and supplies - - plus a place to pay bills - - get counseling etc. Basically a place you have to make an effort to get to - - with no special privileges or conveniences. I would also provide free breakfast and lunch for every child at public schools. (children are the future - - nutrition feeds the brain. I do not support hungry children).

However - - that is going off topic.

IMO - - not only should the government provide any and all preventative pregnancy options - - they should also provide free abortions.

The cost of prevention - - is minimal to the cost of providing support for unplanned/unwanted and uncared for children.

I'll take Scotch - - you can have the cheap beer.




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Both are recreation. Fertility is not a disease. If you want to use birth control so you can screw around, that's fine. Budget for it and pay for it yourself. Why should I have to pay for it (In the form of higher premiums or directly as a taxpayer)? Insurance is supposed to "spread the risk" for diseases over which you have no control. Although lifestyle affects health, no one wants a heart attack or cancer. Insurance helps pay for your care when you are ill.

Now if you get free birth control, I want free beer. Not Miller Lite either. I mean GOOD beer. It's as much recreation as sex, therefore if you subsidize sexual recreation, why don't you subsidize my beer, which is also recreation. Ms. Fluke says her and all her college friends in law school will go broke buying birth control because they have so much sex in college. Well, beer is as much a part of the college experience as sex is, so how about some equality here?

And if you call me a drunk because I want free beer, I expect a call from Obama asking if I'm okay.



This is all well and good. You've made your point. Ha ha.

The way I see it, abortion became a sacrament in the woman's movement about the time 'free love' became the new sexual ethic. So, in my opinion, abortion benefits men primarily because it made women freely available. It took away their ability to say no. It made men expect them to put out. So now if they want to keep the guy they have to, because if they don't someone else will. In my opinion, and I could be wrong, I don't think casual or even semi-casual sex is really part of a woman's nature. I think if you gave women truth serum and then questioned them about this 95% of them would say they would rather just settle down with one person and not have to be sexually active all over the place like a man. I think for women sex is a very emotional way of connecting with another person even more so than just an act of physical pleasure. I think it's something women would rather NOT do readily, if they really felt they had a choice. But with the advent of the sexual revolution and then abortion, they've been having to go around pretending for the past 40 years that they're just like men. And they're not. So before some guy complains about a woman demanding birth control. I have to tell you, overall I think a lot more demands have been placed on women.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I've been trying to find arguments against the OP and I found like 50 but I think he just won't really understand...that's what happens when you drink too much bear, it actually burns brain cells.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
The cost of prevention - - is minimal to the cost of providing support for unplanned/unwanted and uncared for children.


This argument alone breaks the idea of the free beer but try getting that idea in a conservative's brain...



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

The cost of prevention - - is minimal to the cost of providing support for unplanned/unwanted and uncared for children.


The following opinion will probably be hated by many, oh well I'm not PC and never have been.

If we have to pay for peoples mistakes fine, but the kids should be taken away.
Now I don't like child services they over step the bounds too many times and the foster system sucks.
That doesn't change the fact that society is paying for these children.
If society is paying for them take them away and put them in a new system where they have a hope of succeeding, because 10 to 1 if they stay with the parents who can't afford them even with welfare they will wind up in the exact same situation.

The system needs to be over hauled but if society is gonna pay for these kids than society should raise them.

Part of me even wants there to be a freaking test to even become a parent.
My cousins should not be allowed to raise kids but they are.
Being able to have kids does not mean you should.
I know that's wrong though because it infringes on individual rights and I'm a big individual rights person.

Frankly I don't care what anyone does as long as it doesn't affect me have at it.
Just leave me the # alone and don't expect me to pay for your # ups and I won't ask you to pay for mine.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by theRhenn

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Destinyone
Pass a law to make them use birth control, then you might have me on board.....



I've got a better law. Mandatory DNA testing for paternity.

Target the man and his responsibility - - - he will give women what they need.


I agree. Automatically mandatory for any woman who refuses to list the father on the birth certificate. That is how so many women are getting around the child support laws. They won't list the fathers, so they can't be tracked down by the state to pay for their own children.


I think you're kind of twisted in your statistics and focus.

I'm sure there are some women who do as you state. But in comparison to women abandoned by the Paternal unit - - - hardly a blip.



I dont know. I've seen ALOT of instances where women do this JUST for the benefits. It's bigger than you think.


Where do you see all these women getting pregnant just for the benefits? I'm sure it does happen - - as everything is possible/probable. Where are your statistics?

Again - - compared to Paternal units (sperm donors) abandoning their children - - - I doubt it comes close in percentage.


I didnt say they were getting PG for the the benefits. I mean to say that they were claiming no father for them.

Though.. If you look at the people in Louisiana as some other states, of which are on the system... You would also agree. I need no statistics other than to drive down the streets of the projects to see a single mother with 5-7 kids running around. It's common place. If you live fancy, then yeah, perhaps YOU would need statistics. The normal run of the mill folks that have such places in their towns and cities would already know.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   


Access to free contraception in college is easier than getting drinks under 21 and that's a cake walk.
reply to post by Pigraphia
 
When females speak of contraception they're talking about birth control pills, which can't be bought over the counter. Condoms are added protection that also safeguards disease. So I believe that intelligent birth control is more than the use of easily accessible condoms. Both parties must come to the table armed.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I tried to say about the same on a seperate thread and got voided because the $&@" behind the scenes didn't like my analogy. Nice job.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
And it all comes out in the wash.

First, Ms. Fluke is a women's right activists, 30 years old, who enrolled at Georgetown for the purpose of trying to force them to provide free contraception. She's not a 23 year old co-ed as was stated.

Second, birth control from nearby pharmacies costs $9.00 per month, not thousands.

This whole issue is a set-up.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pigraphia
If we have to pay for peoples mistakes fine, but the kids should be taken away.


I'm happy to pay for "mistakes" that are taken care of before I have to pay for a child a parent is not ready for financially - emotionally - or mentally. Which often results in a neglected or abused child.

As far as removing a child from its parents/home - - I'll remind you of the Native American children placed in boarding schools for assimilation into white man culture.

I do actually support alternate places for children - - such as a week by week boarding school. Because generational poverty is like a culture onto itself - - and culture is the hardest thing in the world to change.

This is actually a part of my political belief - - which I do not discuss on ATS. Also going off topic.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Because generational poverty is like a culture onto itself - - and culture is the hardest thing in the world to change.



Truest statement I've ever read on ATS.
Kudos Annee.

On topic, I do believe that Ms Fluke is doing this for political reasons, as has been evidenced in this thread.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

Originally posted by Annee

Because generational poverty is like a culture onto itself - - and culture is the hardest thing in the world to change.



Truest statement I've ever read on ATS.
Kudos Annee.

On topic, I do believe that Ms Fluke is doing this for political reasons, as has been evidenced in this thread.


Thanks.

But who made birth control a political issue? Why is it even a political issue?

It should be an individual right.

EDIT: How can the minimal cost of birth control - - - even be debated against the cost of supporting unwanted and neglected children? My brain just can not compute this argument.
edit on 4-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I love reading threads by Americans complaining about stuff when we in England have had a free national health service since the 40s or 50s (or maybe earlier, I forget) which is what Obama's healthcare is modeled on.

Taxpayers have paid for free contraception for teens and others who need it for decades but the problem is, here we're a lot more liberal while in the US, religion takes a precedent over pretty much everything else by the sound of it so his health idea just won't work.

Where can I get my free beer?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by planchester
When females speak of contraception they're talking about birth control pills, which can't be bought over the counter. Condoms are added protection that also safeguards disease. So I believe that intelligent birth control is more than the use of easily accessible condoms. Both parties must come to the table armed.


If that's how you want to define it fine.
That doesn't change the fact that it's still should be optional for health care to cover.
Dental and eye care is far more a necessity than birth control pills and that is still optional on many health plans.
Everyone should have access to it, but paying for it is another issue.


Originally posted by Annee

But who made birth control a political issue? Why is it even a political issue?

It should be an individual right.

EDIT: How can the minimal cost of birth control - - - even be debated against the cost of supporting unwanted and neglected children? My brain just can not compute this argument.
edit on 4-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)


TBH the media and political hacks have made this o political issue in order to distract us from important things that matter like the economy.
It's a right in as far as no one should be denied access to it.
That doesn't mean it should be free, it needs to be paid for, what ever happened to people paying for there own way in life.

First the debate isn't about contraception or paying for unwanted children you are bringing that up as a side debate when it really should be it's own debate.
I actually find the concept disgusting that if we don't pay for someones contraception they might have an unwanted child and society might have to pay for it.
The birth control should be paid for by the individuals who want to use it.
If those individuals have children they should pay for the children.
People need to take responsibility for their own lives.
The argument that birth control should be paid for or else society will have to pay for unwanted children is criminal.
It is a kin to saying give me what I want or I will shoot you only the bullets are unwanted children and instead of a physical wound the injury is to the nations wallet.

Neither should be paid for, but once a child is hear and the parents can't pay for them we can't abandon the children.
I do feel though that parents shouldn't be able to collect welfare to take care of them.
The children should be taken away and the parents get a bill every month.
It won't cover the entire costs but it could off set them.
The children shouldn't go into our current system either, we need an over haul and an entirely new system.


All of this is a distraction though, in an election year we should focus on the economy not social issues, the economy is what matters and this entire ruckus is just manufactured to distract us.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pigraphia

That doesn't mean it should be free, it needs to be paid for, what ever happened to people paying for there own way in life.


People who are responsible will be responsible. We don't have to worry about them.

Its those people who are not responsible - - but could be lured by Free birth control and free abortion that need it.

And I need them to have it.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pigraphia
All of this is a distraction though, in an election year we should focus on the economy not social issues, the economy is what matters and this entire ruckus is just manufactured to distract us.


So in other words, you're saying "lets sweep all of this unwanted pregnancy crap aside until a non-election year because even though it's a big problem in society, dammit, my vote this November is based around whichever guy promises to give me an extra dollar in my paycheck"?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pigraphia
First the debate isn't about contraception or paying for unwanted children you are bringing that up as a side debate when it really should be it's own debate.


I can't separate the two.


I actually find the concept disgusting that if we don't pay for someones contraception they might have an unwanted child and society might have to pay for it.


The child did not ask to be born. Can't blame or starve the child.


The birth control should be paid for by the individuals who want to use it.


Responsible people will be responsible. I'm not concerned about them.


If those individuals have children they should pay for the children.


Blame the child for having stupid parents?


People need to take responsibility for their own lives.


If I yell this from the rooftops - - do you think they'll listen?


The argument that birth control should be paid for or else society will have to pay for unwanted children is criminal.


No - its fact.


The children should be taken away and the parents get a bill every month.


How about Free birth control and abortions so this doesn't happen.


All of this is a distraction though, in an election year we should focus on the economy not social issues, the economy is what matters and this entire ruckus is just manufactured to distract us.


Unwanted and neglected children affect the economy. Do many of them go on to higher education and become valuable assets to the economy. Or do they recycle in the same culture of irresponsible adults?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by planchester



Access to free contraception in college is easier than getting drinks under 21 and that's a cake walk.
reply to post by Pigraphia
 
When females speak of contraception they're talking about birth control pills, which can't be bought over the counter. Condoms are added protection that also safeguards disease. So I believe that intelligent birth control is more than the use of easily accessible condoms. Both parties must come to the table armed.



"Females"? When "females" and their doctors speak of contraception they are talking about:

Barrier methods
Contraceptive sponge
Diaphragm, cervical cap, and cervical shield
Female condom
Male condom
Hormonal methods
Oral contraceptives — combined pill ("The pill")
Oral contraceptives — progestin-only pill ("Mini-pill")
The patch
Shot/injection
Vaginal ring
Implantable devices
Implantable rods
Intrauterine devices


Of these only condoms and the sponges are sold over the counter in the US.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by curious7
 


Not a dollar in my pocket.
I mean the economy as a whole.
People having enough work to put food on their tables and roofs over their head.
Having enough money to send their children to college.
Enough money to give to charity to help those who can't get jobs.
Hell even enough money so people can pay for their own birth control.

Yes I think focusing on the economy is more important than if a private insurance company is paying for birth control or not.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


No you can't blame the children, but they should be taken away.
Having children when you can't afford to care for them should be criminal, and not just have your kids taken away criminal.
Sent to a work camp until you repay society for having to care for your child.
Is that harsh yes, but it's far more harsh to have a child and not be able to put food on the table for them.
I've been there, I was allowed one meal a day, one every other day when the sperm donors drugs would get expensive due to what ever reasons.
I've been the starving as a rail kid.
I actually have cried over spillt milk because I was afraid of the beating that was going to come for having spilled milk.
Having children you can't care for is one of the worst crimes in my books because I have been there and that doesn't count the abuse that poor children normally suffer.
That is why I am damn sure not going to have children until I can afford them, I don't want them to suffer like I did.

Yelling it off the rooftops won't change squat, criminalizing stupidity and selfishness will.
Poor parents see children as positions plain and simple I know I've been there.
So don't shout it off the rooftops make it against the law to have children if you can't care for them.
Is that PC, hell no I'm tired of a PC society saying we can't tell people they are f-ups.

I don't want free birth control because I think it's wrong to pay for things people won't pay for themselves.
I don't want to just take the children away from parents who can't pay for them I want to make them pay.
If people know they will have to pay no matter what and not "own" the children as so many of poor parents think they do then there will be less unwanted children.
It's not the main cause, but part of poor people having children is so they have someone who will unconditionally love them they don't care that's another persons life that they might be ruining.
They just care about themselves.

Do unwanted children affect the economy yes, but only a portion of it.
That doesn't change the fact that this entire issue is being used to raise hostility, and halt any meaningful conversation on the economy.
Fixing unwanted children as an issue is treating a symptom of a greater disease.
The economy is diseased, fix the greater economy and there will be fewer unwanted children because parents can afford to have them.


I'm sure I will get angry responses because I am not PC enough, and I am too harsh.
Oh well I would rather be hated for having harsh views than loved for having ineffectual views that just placate and pander to the general public.





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join