Back to the 1950s for you!
Let's keep 'em all barefoot and pregnant. Especially if they can't afford to pay for contraception on their own.
Printable View
Back to the 1950s for you!
Let's keep 'em all barefoot and pregnant. Especially if they can't afford to pay for contraception on their own.
Let's see, we can either pay for some contriception or
we can play for the kids via welfare.
Tough tough decision.
I have an idea [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]
Since they wont stop haing sex, why not just buy them all vibrators [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
Too many people have babies now and just expect others or the government to pay for it.
Sad sad state of affairs.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 20, 2006 01:00 PM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>
I am well aware that the political motivation behind this is racial to some extent and anti-poor to a large extent. And I do not agree with that viewpoint.
But...
"The average Missourian believes that as part of women's health, they should be offered in a medical clinic a voluntary choice of contraception," Donnelly said.
And I do have a problem with that mindset. It's the government's responsibility to make sure she has contraception. And if she does get pregnant, it's the government's job to feed, clothe, and raise the kid for her.
Granted, I would prefer the contraception over unwanted pregnancies. And it is true that it is cheaper for the government to pay for the contraception than to raise the unwanted children. So officially, were I a member of the Missouri legislature, by default I would have to dissent with the majority. But I will always disagree with that mindset, even though I know deep-down it's here to stay and it will only worsen over time.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Setting aside the other side of the coin and just talking about contraception, I'm interested in why you would object to the government providing contraception as part of it's women's health programs.Quote:
Originally posted by Lew:
And I do have a problem with that mindset. It's the government's responsibility to make sure she has contraception.
Seems like a win-win proposition to me.
Pina-
the problem with a government hand-out is, there's no incentive (or reason) for a person to go out and purchase the contraceptives when they know they can get them for 'free' from the government.
Plus, I don't view pregnancy in the same light as I do a disease, because quite frankly, a pregnancy is not a disease. Hypothetical- let's say there develops a very serious virus that threatens the health and/or lives of the general population. And let's further say there exists a vaccine. Hey, start lining 'em up and let's get everyone vaccinated. I fully support that, but because it serves to counter a legitimate health concern.
But this isn't the same. Pregnancy is not a virus, it doesn't pose a threat to the general population. And unlike a vaccine, one can go to any drug store and purchase fairly cheap, fairly reliable contraception (and the contraception you get on the government's nickel is no more reliable, just cheaper).
Like I said, in the end I do support the contraception as part of the health program, but only because the alternative is worse and I'm trying to pick the lesser. But I will always have a problem with the hand-out mentality.
Why is the government responsible for contraception?
They hand out free condoms at planned parenthood, dont they?
A lot of younger people think they can just be "lucky" when having uinprotected sex, but obviously many arent. And it's not only young people.
You gotta think about the possible consiquences of your actions. This goes for both the men and women involved.
Better safe than sorry, and if you cant afford to take care of yourself, you obviously cant afford to take care of a baby.
Then it's back to the government paying for it.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 22, 2006 02:58 PM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>
Gae and Pina- I agree with you both in principle. I just think the reality is that if contraception can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, then I support it by default.
I'm on the fence on this one, believe me. And I hate the idea of government hand-outs. I'm just thinking about the long-term I suppose.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why is the goverment responsible for maintaining the roads?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Surely, Pi?a, you aren't that stupid. Comparing contraception to infrastructure is such a stretch, it's unbelievable.Quote:
Originally posted by Pi?a:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by gae:
Why is the government responsible for contraception?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why is the goverment responsible for maintaining the roads?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know I?m just a dumb Southern boy so please enlighten me with you progressive wisdom.Quote:
Originally posted by Pi?a:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by gae:
Why is the government responsible for contraception?
Are you saying that a woman?s vagina is like a public road and all anyone needs to do is be above the age of 16, pass a minimal skill test and an eye test and they have unlimited use of any vagina in the country?
Or are you saying that public roads are like a woman?s vagina and before someone drives on it they need the road?s permission?