I tend to be pretty liberal, but I don't understand the whole birth control thing. Why has free birth control become some kind of human rights crusade?
I tend to be pretty liberal, but I don't understand the whole birth control thing. Why has free birth control become some kind of human rights crusade?
The philosophy of the left is as follows: if you need it, it's your neighbor's duty to pay for it.
questioning liberal wrote:
I tend to be pretty liberal, but I don't understand the whole birth control thing. Why has free birth control become some kind of human rights crusade?
Pretty liberal? Pretty stupid, more like it!
questioning liberal wrote:
I tend to be pretty liberal, but I don't understand the whole birth control thing. Why has free birth control become some kind of human rights crusade?
I'm pretty conservative, but I think of free birth control as one of the few excellent investments that the federal government could make.
prettycon wrote:
questioning liberal wrote:I tend to be pretty liberal, but I don't understand the whole birth control thing. Why has free birth control become some kind of human rights crusade?
I'm pretty conservative, but I think of free birth control as one of the few excellent investments that the federal government could make.
Excellent point. When you consider the cost of abortions, loss of life, etc. the ROI must be off the charts. Thing is certain people still will not have sense enough to take advantage of it.
questioning liberal wrote:
I tend to be pretty liberal, but I don't understand the whole birth control thing. Why has free birth control become some kind of human rights crusade?
I have no idea why it would be a human rights crusade but the economic argument would be free access to birth control means fewer unwanted births which means lower societal/economic costs from said unwanted births. I can also see some positive effects on the healthcare side depending on the type of birth control being made available.
So in short, the cost of making available free birth control would be outweighed but the savings later. Access to abortion services makes similar economic arguments.
Cost cutting initiative under a universal health care model. I don't know that I agree with it, but that's why.
questioning liberal wrote:
I tend to be pretty liberal, but I don't understand the whole birth control thing. Why has free birth control become some kind of human rights crusade?
There is a lot going on with regard to free birth control, and if Conservatives really thought about it, they might really be on board.
First of all, start with a position that free birth control would likely be for lower-income people. People born into poverty have a great chance of continuing on in poverty as they become adults (stats say, but obviously, many pull themselves out). If we have fewer people born into poverty, we then have fewer services (welfare of all kinds) that tax payers need to pay for. It really SHOULD be a conservative view that we need to make sure lower income people don't reproduce uncontrolled. Initially, I had some trouble with supporting free birth control simply because of that, but then when you consider that if they WANT birth control and can't afford it, then I'm all for it...allows them to have a better chance of pulling themselves out of poverty if they don't have unwanted pregnancies.
The "economic argument" given is wrong. We don't need the government to supply "free" birth control. Complained who sell contraceptives and birth control products have to make them affordable to the demographics who need them in order to make a profit. The best acces to birth control will happen when the left disappears and business people are free to exploit young women who don't have much money by selling effective birth control products for pennies.
Flagpole wrote:
questioning liberal wrote:I tend to be pretty liberal, but I don't understand the whole birth control thing. Why has free birth control become some kind of human rights crusade?
There is a lot going on with regard to free birth control, and if Conservatives really thought about it, they might really be on board.
First of all, start with a position that free birth control would likely be for lower-income people. People born into poverty have a great chance of continuing on in poverty as they become adults (stats say, but obviously, many pull themselves out). If we have fewer people born into poverty, we then have fewer services (welfare of all kinds) that tax payers need to pay for. It really SHOULD be a conservative view that we need to make sure lower income people don't reproduce uncontrolled. Initially, I had some trouble with supporting free birth control simply because of that, but then when you consider that if they WANT birth control and can't afford it, then I'm all for it...allows them to have a better chance of pulling themselves out of poverty if they don't have unwanted pregnancies.
I don't really see how a box of condoms could be prohibitively expensive for anyone. And it doesn't cost anything to simply refuse to let someone stick their dick in you until they glove up.
Why is it so important to think that everything needs to be free to be a good thing? Are we not responsible for our own well being? Do we really need the appeal of "getting something for nothing" to make life better?
Meanwhile, college stadiums will be filled to capacity this fall for most big time football games and TV will be featuring a gazillion games every week paid for by advertising that increases the prices of everything we purchase. And going to those games is not cheap, either, yet there is no demand for having those games be free admission at any of these stadiums. Heck, I think most people would agree seeing a game live and for free would make their lives a bit better. Instead people pay upwards of $400 a game and have no problem with that. Yet making sure you don't get pregnant while not being able to afford it requires "special benefits from the government"?
You have a better chance of getting out of poverty if you have a goal of making life better for yourself by working hard and saving before you spend. Not much different than doing solid workouts to get better as an athlete rather than looking for some magic bullet that will improve your level of performance.
questioning liberal wrote:
Flagpole wrote:There is a lot going on with regard to free birth control, and if Conservatives really thought about it, they might really be on board.
First of all, start with a position that free birth control would likely be for lower-income people. People born into poverty have a great chance of continuing on in poverty as they become adults (stats say, but obviously, many pull themselves out). If we have fewer people born into poverty, we then have fewer services (welfare of all kinds) that tax payers need to pay for. It really SHOULD be a conservative view that we need to make sure lower income people don't reproduce uncontrolled. Initially, I had some trouble with supporting free birth control simply because of that, but then when you consider that if they WANT birth control and can't afford it, then I'm all for it...allows them to have a better chance of pulling themselves out of poverty if they don't have unwanted pregnancies.
I don't really see how a box of condoms could be prohibitively expensive for anyone. And it doesn't cost anything to simply refuse to let someone stick their dick in you until they glove up.
Typically the free birth control discussion involves birth control pills so that the woman has the absolute control there. So, it empowers women, it allows them to strive for their goals without the burden of an unwanted pregnancy, and down the line it potentially saves tax payers a lot of money.
Well maybe if you ever get a chance to have sex you'll understand the benefit.
The whole idea only benefits anyone who ever had any sex without the intent to procreate.
It would be cheaper to distribute and more effective if they put it in the water in low-income neighborhoods instead of dispensing pills.
L L wrote:
Well maybe if you ever get a chance to have sex you'll understand the benefit.
The whole idea only benefits anyone who ever had any sex without the intent to procreate.
I have had sex. I used a condom. It wasn't difficult.
poor people be crazy wrote:
It would be cheaper to distribute and more effective if they put it in the water in low-income neighborhoods instead of dispensing pills.
Well, that would be forced sterilization and not supportable of course.
justthefacts wrote:
Why is it so important to think that everything needs to be free to be a good thing? Are we not responsible for our own well being? Do we really need the appeal of "getting something for nothing" to make life better?
Meanwhile, college stadiums will be filled to capacity this fall for most big time football games and TV will be featuring a gazillion games every week paid for by advertising that increases the prices of everything we purchase. And going to those games is not cheap, either, yet there is no demand for having those games be free admission at any of these stadiums. Heck, I think most people would agree seeing a game live and for free would make their lives a bit better. Instead people pay upwards of $400 a game and have no problem with that. Yet making sure you don't get pregnant while not being able to afford it requires "special benefits from the government"?
You have a better chance of getting out of poverty if you have a goal of making life better for yourself by working hard and saving before you spend. Not much different than doing solid workouts to get better as an athlete rather than looking for some magic bullet that will improve your level of performance.
this is a silly comparison. there is no positive externality of subsidizing football games.
poor people be crazy wrote:
It would be cheaper to distribute and more effective if they put it in the water in low-income neighborhoods instead of dispensing pills.
Excellent idea! Why not take it a step further: forced sterilization for the poor, the stupid and > 15:00 hobby joggers.
Hitler in Antarctica wrote:
poor people be crazy wrote:It would be cheaper to distribute and more effective if they put it in the water in low-income neighborhoods instead of dispensing pills.
Excellent idea! Why not take it a step further: forced sterilization for the poor, the stupid and > 15:00 hobby joggers.
I don't support forced sterilization. Birth control in the water would enable people to become fertile once they had improved their own situation, which I think is ideal.
BS wrote:
questioning liberal wrote:I tend to be pretty liberal, but I don't understand the whole birth control thing. Why has free birth control become some kind of human rights crusade?
I have no idea why it would be a human rights crusade but the economic argument would be free access to birth control means fewer unwanted births which means lower societal/economic costs from said unwanted births. I can also see some positive effects on the healthcare side depending on the type of birth control being made available.
So in short, the cost of making available free birth control would be outweighed but the savings later. Access to abortion services makes similar economic arguments.
The high schools in my area give out free condoms. Not only will this cut down on pregnancies as stated above but it might cut down on disease transmission.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!