Why the fight against Birth Control?

[kaz]

How generous of you. You think taxpayers should pay for your cause rather than you paying it out of your wallet. And I called you a skin flint. Nailed it!

And again you repeat that if government doesn't pay for it, you don't believe liberals will make sure their objectives are met. If people aren't willing to pay for it with choice, then it shouldn't happen. So since you say you do donate, is it the other liberals following up with donating to their own causes you don't believe will happen?

You nailed nothing. Skinflint.

You don't want to pay for it. Period.

You're the one who says you don't want to pay for it, you want taxpayers to, then you claim you can read my mind. Gotcha.

If taxpayers pay for it, that means the top 20% will pay 80% of it like everything else. That clearly does not include you. You're a skin flint, guilty as charged

No. I never said that.

If taxpayers pay for it - I AM paying for it. I also give money to charities and PP. Private and public funding.

Do you get it yet? Or does it need to be dumbed down further?

If taxpayers pay for it, you're paying for almost none of it. What gives you the moral right to force everyone to pay for the causes you support? Pay for your own damn charity. Charity is not a feat that can be performed with other people's money

But a social safety net IS - with EVERYONE's money.

So you stuck everyone with a "safety net" which gives you the right to stick everyone with birth control. Typical liberal circular argument

 

[Uncensored2008]

All one has to do is watch Maury Povich and you will realize that not only should BC be free, it should be a requirement.

Voting democrat should include mandatory sterilization.

Just kidding..

Though it would be a great idea voluntarily - to help the species...

 

[kaz]

What the fuck? Places at the "feet of women?" Fuck your brains out, spread your legs, get VD, get pregnant, what ever the fuck you want. Just do it on your own dime. What is possibly unclear about that?

Generally speaking, I agree I don't want to pay for other people's choices. The problem here is that I'm going to pay either way, either in the minimal cost of birth control or in the schooling or incarceration of the kid. One is very much cheaper than the other, so I'm going with the cheap one.

That's pure economics here. The only way to 100% avoid paying for unwanted pregnancies as a citizen is to either completely stop funding education via tax money, as well as jails, or to pay for birth control. And dollar for dollar, the birth control is far cheaper.

It's not an either or proposition though. You will still be paying for the bad choices anyway, in addition to birth control...

If you don't provide birth control, you end up paying for education or incarceration for these kids that are born. So I do pay even if I don't pay for birth control. Just under Birth Control I pay less.

If as a taxpayer I pay for birth control I still pay. I'm paying for birth control and the occasional failure of the birth control, as well as STD costs I'd have paid for with or without birth control. I'm just paying less. This isn't a tough situation to model out mathematically. Any sensible person realizes the cheaper option is to pay for the birth control.

And again, you're arguing that charity = government. If government doesn't pay for it then citizens won't donate the money ourselves. It's a cop out. If citizens won't pay for it ourselves, government should not pay paying for it for us on our behalf with our money. And I think you're wrong. If government got out of the charity business, we would.

Also, I reject the premise that the baby is our responsibility which is what you are arguing, it's not

Actually, I am not arguing charity=government. The issue is as a tax payer there are certain things that I pay for that are provided to any child born in the USA. Even if you toss out of the conversation entitlements, at the bare minimum it's education, and in the event of wrong doing, incarceration. I'd just rather use my tax money more efficiently and birth control is a way to do that.

You are saying charity = government, you're arguing that if government doesn't pay for it, then women won't get contraception.

The best way to use your money "more efficiently" is to not use it for redistribution of wealth at all. We need to cut spending, not move it around. $20 Trillion in debt clearly shows that

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
That's just not reality. I've had so many conversations with so many good people who understand abortion is a necessary evil. Talk to most healthcare professionals who deal with poverty and they'll tell you abortion is absolutely a necessary. And these are good people who personally would never get an abortion.

I don't know how Christians deal with the fact that abortion is murder and yet they are ok with murdering fetus' which are technically humans. Deep down they must admit that life just isn't that precious. If they were truly religious I don't know how they could think it is not but I suspect they are more born into their religions than they are BELIEVERS. Do they believe the bible literally? No they do not. Does my aunt who doesn't know a thing about science and who grew up super religious? She sure does. To her a fetus is just as much of a life as you are. Having an abortion is like shooting you in the head as you walk down the street. Or slitting a 3 year old babies neck. To them there's no difference.

That's odd. Pretty much anyone who supports abortion that I've talked to views it not as an necessary evil, but as the greatest good.

That said, it is astounding how ignorant the average abortion promoter is of basic biology. Yes, the offspring of two humans is human. Yes, that which has independent heart, brain, and DNA patterns is an independent life.Abortion is the killing of another human. Civilized people do not support such a thing without judicial review to establish cause and to protect the rights of the intended victim.

 

[sealybobo]

[
That's just not reality. I've had so many conversations with so many good people who understand abortion is a necessary evil. Talk to most healthcare professionals who deal with poverty and they'll tell you abortion is absolutely a necessary. And these are good people who personally would never get an abortion.

I don't know how Christians deal with the fact that abortion is murder and yet they are ok with murdering fetus' which are technically humans. Deep down they must admit that life just isn't that precious. If they were truly religious I don't know how they could think it is not but I suspect they are more born into their religions than they are BELIEVERS. Do they believe the bible literally? No they do not. Does my aunt who doesn't know a thing about science and who grew up super religious? She sure does. To her a fetus is just as much of a life as you are. Having an abortion is like shooting you in the head as you walk down the street. Or slitting a 3 year old babies neck. To them there's no difference.

That's odd. Pretty much anyone who supports abortion that I've talked to views it not as an necessary evil, but as the greatest good.

That said, it is astounding how ignorant the average abortion promoter is of basic biology. Yes, the offspring of two humans is human. Yes, that which has independent heart, brain, and DNA patterns is an independent life.Abortion is the killing of another human. Civilized people do not support such a thing without judicial review to establish cause and to protect the rights of the intended victim.

God I hope you take this away from all the women who believe they should be the ones making that choice but who were too stupid to show up and vote.

But do you really want people who are that stupid raising more kids?

It is both a necessary evil and the greater good.

 

[kaz]

[
That's just not reality. I've had so many conversations with so many good people who understand abortion is a necessary evil. Talk to most healthcare professionals who deal with poverty and they'll tell you abortion is absolutely a necessary. And these are good people who personally would never get an abortion.

I don't know how Christians deal with the fact that abortion is murder and yet they are ok with murdering fetus' which are technically humans. Deep down they must admit that life just isn't that precious. If they were truly religious I don't know how they could think it is not but I suspect they are more born into their religions than they are BELIEVERS. Do they believe the bible literally? No they do not. Does my aunt who doesn't know a thing about science and who grew up super religious? She sure does. To her a fetus is just as much of a life as you are. Having an abortion is like shooting you in the head as you walk down the street. Or slitting a 3 year old babies neck. To them there's no difference.

That's odd. Pretty much anyone who supports abortion that I've talked to views it not as an necessary evil, but as the greatest good.

That said, it is astounding how ignorant the average abortion promoter is of basic biology. Yes, the offspring of two humans is human. Yes, that which has independent heart, brain, and DNA patterns is an independent life.Abortion is the killing of another human. Civilized people do not support such a thing without judicial review to establish cause and to protect the rights of the intended victim.

Civilized societies go into court and have a big debate about whether government should use force to compel a woman to carry a fetus to term in her body, do they? That sounds quite uncivilized to me

 

[koshergrl]

After 97 pages of this crap, WHO is exactly being accused of being against Birth Control and what is the specific evidence to back this claim?

If you're too lazy to read it, and just want to jump in, don't expect us to fill you in with the Readers Digest version.

Coyote maintains, and always has maintained, that saying "we don't want the feds to pay for birth control" is the same thing as "we don't think women should be allowed to have birth control".

It isn't, but she wrongheadedly plows ahead with the false narrative, believing, as Hitler did, that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

Link?

To WHAT?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

God I hope you take this away from all the women who believe they should be the ones making that choice but who were too stupid to show up and vote.

But do you really want people who are that stupid raising more kids?

It is both a necessary evil and the greater good.

How does your vitriol and idiocy in any way address what I posted?

The simple fact is that you, like most abortion promoters, are abjectly ignorant of the basic facts of biology. You attempted to promote your bigotry against the Christians whom you hate as justification for the ignorance that underscores your promotion of abortion. But it is not the Christians who lack even a hint of a grasp of basic scientific understanding, it is you.

It's not religion that defeats your arguments, it's knowledge.

 

[Coyote]

You nailed nothing. Skinflint.

You don't want to pay for it. Period.

You're the one who says you don't want to pay for it, you want taxpayers to, then you claim you can read my mind. Gotcha.

If taxpayers pay for it, that means the top 20% will pay 80% of it like everything else. That clearly does not include you. You're a skin flint, guilty as charged

No. I never said that.

If taxpayers pay for it - I AM paying for it. I also give money to charities and PP. Private and public funding.

Do you get it yet? Or does it need to be dumbed down further?

If taxpayers pay for it, you're paying for almost none of it. What gives you the moral right to force everyone to pay for the causes you support? Pay for your own damn charity. Charity is not a feat that can be performed with other people's money

But a social safety net IS - with EVERYONE's money.

So you stuck everyone with a "safety net" which gives you the right to stick everyone with birth control. Typical liberal circular argument

Typical selfish conservative argument

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Civilized societies go into court and have a big debate about whether government should use force to compel a woman to carry a fetus to term in her body, do they? That sounds quite uncivilized to me

Civilized societies have courts to protect the rights of those in society who are least able to defend themselves.

I get that it would be convenient for cities to bash the brains of the homeless in and clean up the streets. They really are inconvenient and unsightly. Yet civilized people recognize that it is morally repugnant to kill others simply because they are an inconvenience. Some women find their own offspring inconvenient, and like Andrea Yeats decide to end them. Decent people are appalled by this.

So the concept that we can kill others because they interfere with our plans is rejected by civilized people. When a society STOPS rejecting such propositions, then that society cannot be considered civilized.

We were once a nation of laws, where the merits of killing another person must be presented to a court of law before the killing occurred. That is how a civilized society behaves.

 

[koshergrl]

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

-Joseph Goebbels

Like the lie that providing free birth control causes an explosion in teen pregnancies?

Nobody said that, you fruitcake.

What I said is that teen pregnancy exploded after the feds started funding and distributing birth control. So OBVIOUSLY federally funded birth control doesn't reduce teen pregnancy.

Your brain just doesn't work right.

 

[kaz]

You're the one who says you don't want to pay for it, you want taxpayers to, then you claim you can read my mind. Gotcha.

If taxpayers pay for it, that means the top 20% will pay 80% of it like everything else. That clearly does not include you. You're a skin flint, guilty as charged

No. I never said that.

If taxpayers pay for it - I AM paying for it. I also give money to charities and PP. Private and public funding.

Do you get it yet? Or does it need to be dumbed down further?

If taxpayers pay for it, you're paying for almost none of it. What gives you the moral right to force everyone to pay for the causes you support? Pay for your own damn charity. Charity is not a feat that can be performed with other people's money

But a social safety net IS - with EVERYONE's money.

So you stuck everyone with a "safety net" which gives you the right to stick everyone with birth control. Typical liberal circular argument

Typical selfish conservative argument

Now I'm a conservative! The intelligence just oozes from you ...

And yes, I should pay for my own charity, what a self consumed stance. If I had any generosity at all, I'd take your stance that my charity objectives should be paid for with taxpayer money. You are a humanitarian indeed

 

[kaz]

[

Civilized societies go into court and have a big debate about whether government should use force to compel a woman to carry a fetus to term in her body, do they? That sounds quite uncivilized to me

Civilized societies have courts to protect the rights of those in society who are least able to defend themselves.

I get that it would be convenient for cities to bash the brains of the homeless in and clean up the streets. They really are inconvenient and unsightly. Yet civilized people recognize that it is morally repugnant to kill others simply because they are an inconvenience. Some women find their own offspring inconvenient, and like Andrea Yeats decide to end them. Decent people are appalled by this.

So the concept that we can kill others because they interfere with our plans is rejected by civilized people. When a society STOPS rejecting such propositions, then that society cannot be considered civilized.

We were once a nation of laws, where the merits of killing another person must be presented to a court of law before the killing occurred. That is how a civilized society behaves.

What does government killing people intentionally have to do with my argument, which was "whether government should use force to compel a woman to carry a fetus to term in her body?"

Who's bodies are you claiming the "homeless" occupy?

 

[koshergrl]

[

Civilized societies go into court and have a big debate about whether government should use force to compel a woman to carry a fetus to term in her body, do they? That sounds quite uncivilized to me

Civilized societies have courts to protect the rights of those in society who are least able to defend themselves.

I get that it would be convenient for cities to bash the brains of the homeless in and clean up the streets. They really are inconvenient and unsightly. Yet civilized people recognize that it is morally repugnant to kill others simply because they are an inconvenience. Some women find their own offspring inconvenient, and like Andrea Yeats decide to end them. Decent people are appalled by this.

So the concept that we can kill others because they interfere with our plans is rejected by civilized people. When a society STOPS rejecting such propositions, then that society cannot be considered civilized.

We were once a nation of laws, where the merits of killing another person must be presented to a court of law before the killing occurred. That is how a civilized society behaves.

What does government killing people intentionally have to do with my argument, which was "whether government should use force to compel a woman to carry a fetus to term in her body?"

Who's bodies are you claiming the "homeless" occupy?

holy crap, you're a lunatic, now I know why I have you on ignore.

 

[kaz]

[

Civilized societies go into court and have a big debate about whether government should use force to compel a woman to carry a fetus to term in her body, do they? That sounds quite uncivilized to me

Civilized societies have courts to protect the rights of those in society who are least able to defend themselves.

I get that it would be convenient for cities to bash the brains of the homeless in and clean up the streets. They really are inconvenient and unsightly. Yet civilized people recognize that it is morally repugnant to kill others simply because they are an inconvenience. Some women find their own offspring inconvenient, and like Andrea Yeats decide to end them. Decent people are appalled by this.

So the concept that we can kill others because they interfere with our plans is rejected by civilized people. When a society STOPS rejecting such propositions, then that society cannot be considered civilized.

We were once a nation of laws, where the merits of killing another person must be presented to a court of law before the killing occurred. That is how a civilized society behaves.

What does government killing people intentionally have to do with my argument, which was "whether government should use force to compel a woman to carry a fetus to term in her body?"

Who's bodies are you claiming the "homeless" occupy?

holy crap, you're a lunatic, now I know why I have you on ignore.

You're a one issue girl, huh?

 

[Uncensored2008]

What does government killing people intentionally have to do with my argument, which was "whether government should use force to compel a woman to carry a fetus to term in her body?"

Who's bodies are you claiming the "homeless" occupy?

Abortion is the deliberate killing of another human.

The homeless occupy the buildings, parks and streets of others. Never seen an unborn baby shit in the elevator at the train station.

Still, civilized people do not kill them.

The ignorant claims of "blob" or "no different than a toe nail" fail on those with a grasp of basic biology.

EDIT - Strange backquoting tried to tie the post I replied to to Coyote rather than KAZ - I killed the link because of this.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Recognizing that life is valuable lies at the heart of birth control. In choosing NOT to bring into the world a life that won't be valued.

Of course. My whole point at the beginning was this: Why pay for birth control, why risk the destruction of a human life, when you can simply practice abstinence? No money involved, no stress involved. If you don't want a child being brought into this world who will only suffer a low standard of living, then abstinence.

I don't understand how you can expect a married couple, who have had the two children they wanted, to then either continue to have babies or practice abstinence for the rest of their married life.

Easy. Have the husband undergo a vasectomy, and/or the wife a hysterectomy. If you have as many children as you want, those are the best ways to do it. You can still have as much sex as you want that way.

So many other options, yet you insist on this one.

Sex is also an act of love.

It is also an act of procreation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Animals have been known to destroy their own young.

Out of instinct, not out of choice. Some animals have the ability to determine the health of the offspring, if the offspring isn't expected to survive, the mother eats her own young.

Let Nat Geo take it from here:


"It can seem unnatural," Barthel says, "but there are reasons. They might sound cold to us, but they're simple—and they have to do with resources."

Indeed, mother bears, felines, canids, primates, and many species of rodents—from rats to prairie dogs—have all been seen killing and eating their young. Insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds also have been implicated in killing, and sometimes devouring, the young of their own kind.

When mammalian mothers give birth, they must begin nursing their infants—something they can do only if they're healthy and well nourished.

But if, for instance, a mother bear in the wild gives birth to unhealthy or deformed cubs, or is unable to find enough to eat, she will typically kill and consume them.

"They become a resource, one she can't afford to waste," Barthel says."

Why Do Animals Sometimes Kill Their Babies?

But us on the other hand? We have bountiful resources. We have enough resources to have as many children as we want in a healthy manner.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In my view, when a woman uses birth control she is not engaging in the same behavior that got her pregnant, she is altering it by taking responsibility. And that means using birth control.

In my view, birth control is nothing but a way for a woman to escape that responsibility.

As soon as the cell in that zygote begins to divide, that is human life. When a woman starts using birth control, she is ending that life. That is the ultimate abandonment of responsibility. And in my view, an act of murder.

That is a pretty darn strong statement and one that places it all at the feet of the woman.

The pill acts, primarily to prevent pregnancy and secondarily to prevent implantation by keeping the womb hostile through the use of natural hormones. We're not incubators for potential life. Most fertalized eggs never even make it that far. Add to that the fact that many married couples also use birth control for family planning - is she escaping responsibility because she doesn't want go through ten or twelve pregnancies? Should a married couple be expected to practice abstinance?

What the fuck? Places at the "feet of women?" Fuck your brains out, spread your legs, get VD, get pregnant, what ever the fuck you want. Just do it on your own dime. What is possibly unclear about that?

Generally speaking, I agree I don't want to pay for other people's choices. The problem here is that I'm going to pay either way, either in the minimal cost of birth control or in the schooling or incarceration of the kid. One is very much cheaper than the other, so I'm going with the cheap one.

That's pure economics here. The only way to 100% avoid paying for unwanted pregnancies as a citizen is to either completely stop funding education via tax money, as well as jails, or to pay for birth control. And dollar for dollar, the birth control is far cheaper.

WHY are you going to pay either way? Isn't that because leftists have decreed that we're going to be forced to take part in other people's private healthcare decisions whether we want to or not?

I love how leftists impose their worldview onto people, and then use that as an excuse why their worldview needs to be imposed even further.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In my view, when a woman uses birth control she is not engaging in the same behavior that got her pregnant, she is altering it by taking responsibility. And that means using birth control.

In my view, birth control is nothing but a way for a woman to escape that responsibility.

As soon as the cell in that zygote begins to divide, that is human life. When a woman starts using birth control, she is ending that life. That is the ultimate abandonment of responsibility. And in my view, an act of murder.

That is a pretty darn strong statement and one that places it all at the feet of the woman.

The pill acts, primarily to prevent pregnancy and secondarily to prevent implantation by keeping the womb hostile through the use of natural hormones. We're not incubators for potential life. Most fertalized eggs never even make it that far. Add to that the fact that many married couples also use birth control for family planning - is she escaping responsibility because she doesn't want go through ten or twelve pregnancies? Should a married couple be expected to practice abstinance?

What the fuck? Places at the "feet of women?" Fuck your brains out, spread your legs, get VD, get pregnant, what ever the fuck you want. Just do it on your own dime. What is possibly unclear about that?

Generally speaking, I agree I don't want to pay for other people's choices. The problem here is that I'm going to pay either way, either in the minimal cost of birth control or in the schooling or incarceration of the kid. One is very much cheaper than the other, so I'm going with the cheap one.

That's pure economics here. The only way to 100% avoid paying for unwanted pregnancies as a citizen is to either completely stop funding education via tax money, as well as jails, or to pay for birth control. And dollar for dollar, the birth control is far cheaper.

It's not an either or proposition though. You will still be paying for the bad choices anyway, in addition to birth control...

And why is it that we will be paying for other people's bad choices, exactly? Isn't it because the same people now wanting to force us to pay for birth control previously forced us to take financial responsibility for people's bad healthcare choices?