Why should the Government pay for contraception?

[rightwinger]

Act responsibly or pay the consequences.

Starving children?

You know the argument is lost for progressives when they start cowering behind the starving children meme for cover.

Like Abortion?

Pay me now or pay me later

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

We as a society, do not allow children to starve. Contraception reduces unwanted children

Pay me now, or pay me later

Act responsibly or pay the consequences.

Starving children?

g5000 must think that getting pregnant is devoid of any extenuating circumstances and only happens to those who are irresponsible......Hahahahahaha. This black and white thing about pregnancy just has not basis in reality.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Act responsibly or pay the consequences.

Starving children?

g5000 must think that getting pregnant is devoid of any extenuating circumstances and only happens to those who are irresponsible......Hahahahahaha. This black and white thing about pregnancy just has not basis in reality.

And progressive whacks like you seem to believe that every woman who has an accidental pregnancy and bears the child is automatically going to end up on the dole.

 

[candycorn]

Please explain why the person whose birth control I am paying for cannot pay for it themselves the way I pay for my own insulation and my own birth control.

Birth control is expensive as is insulation. However, the stakes of not having birth control are much higher than the stakes of not having insulation.

If you were to examine Maslow, you'd see that intimacy is one of the recognized needs of humans. To deny the need exists is to question science. Politically you can win favor doing that but it's usually done at your peril otherwise.

It's in society's best interest to fund contraception for low income persons. The government also recognizes the benefits of the citizens to have insulation as well

Tax Incentives Assistance Project

Why should my tax money go toward paying/reducing someone else's tax burden? Because in the long run it's in my best interest that the world isn't plowing through it's heating oil as quickly.

Do these low income people have cell phones? Cable TV? Xboxes? Internet Service? Cars? Tattoos? Piercings? etc? etc?

If you're talking about more intrusive/intensive/indecent needs testing sure. But usually it's the conservatives who get antsy about hiring thousands of investigators to dig into the lives of Americans to make sure they are truly eligible for every bit of assistance they get. Imagine all of the sham marriages or sham non-marriages they will uncover!!!

Truth is the ultimate goal. If you have a tattoo you probably are spending money you shouldn't have spent. Piercings...okay... Cable? Yup. Some things though are probably necessary. I remember there was a law down in Texas (where else) that would put people behind on child support in jail and suspend their professional licenses. Thus ensuring that the kids will never get a penny....

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Starving children?

You know the argument is lost for progressives when they start cowering behind the starving children meme for cover.

Like Abortion?

Pay me now or pay me later

Helena GasBag has her head in her....purse. These ******* idiots screech about abortion but they don't want reasonable ways to avoid it. And yes true about kids going hungry in this country:




Hunger in America: 2013 United States Hunger and Poverty Facts

World Hunger Education Service

Hunger in the United States

Three years after the onset of the financial and economic crisis, hunger remains high in the United States. The financial and economic crisis that erupted in 2008 caused a dramatic increase in hunger in the United States. This high level of hunger continues in 2010, according to the latest government report (with the most recent statistics) released in September 2011 (Coleman-Jensen 2011).

In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States 1 (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v.)

In 2010, about one-third of food-insecure households (6.7 million households, or 5.4 percent of all U.S. households) had very low food security (compared with 4.7 million households (4.1 percent) in 2007. In households with very low food security, the food intake of some household members was reduced, and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because of the household’s food insecurity (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v., Nord 2009, p. iii.) .
In 2010, children were food insecure at times during the year in 9.8 percent of households with children (3.9 million households.) In one percent of households with children,one or more of the children experienced the most severe food-insecure condition measured by USDA, very low food security, in which meals were irregular and food intake was below levels considered adequate by caregivers (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. vi).

Hunger in America: 2013 United States Hunger and Poverty Facts





GasBag, do you think this is happening in households with high incomes?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You know the argument is lost for progressives when they start cowering behind the starving children meme for cover.

Like Abortion?

Pay me now or pay me later

Helena GasBag has her head in her....purse. These ******* idiots screech about abortion but they don't want reasonable ways to avoid it. And yes true about kids going hungry in this country:




Hunger in America: 2013 United States Hunger and Poverty Facts

World Hunger Education Service

Hunger in the United States

Three years after the onset of the financial and economic crisis, hunger remains high in the United States. The financial and economic crisis that erupted in 2008 caused a dramatic increase in hunger in the United States. This high level of hunger continues in 2010, according to the latest government report (with the most recent statistics) released in September 2011 (Coleman-Jensen 2011).

In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States 1 (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v.)

In 2010, about one-third of food-insecure households (6.7 million households, or 5.4 percent of all U.S. households) had very low food security (compared with 4.7 million households (4.1 percent) in 2007. In households with very low food security, the food intake of some household members was reduced, and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because of the household’s food insecurity (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v., Nord 2009, p. iii.) .
In 2010, children were food insecure at times during the year in 9.8 percent of households with children (3.9 million households.) In one percent of households with children,one or more of the children experienced the most severe food-insecure condition measured by USDA, very low food security, in which meals were irregular and food intake was below levels considered adequate by caregivers (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. vi).

Hunger in America: 2013 United States Hunger and Poverty Facts





GasBag, do you think this is happening in households with high incomes?

What we don't do is presume that every woman who bears a child will become a welfare case as a result.

Grow the hell up.

 

[candycorn]

Now you are just plain lying, to go with being a cheapskate.

Insulation isn't that expensive.

Ever hired a carpenter or other installation expert?

Face it, you are just a garden variety cheapskate.

Probably a crappy tipper, too.

Installed it myself down in Texas. Had a devil of a time doing it. Why am I paying for you to hire someone to do it for you?

Lazy ass.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Starving children?

g5000 must think that getting pregnant is devoid of any extenuating circumstances and only happens to those who are irresponsible......Hahahahahaha. This black and white thing about pregnancy just has not basis in reality.

And progressive whacks like you seem to believe that every woman who has an accidental pregnancy and bears the child is automatically going to end up on the dole.

That's not what I said. That's what YOU think and fear most because you are totally ignorant of the facts.

If I'm wrong, please post the facts here.

 

[blackhawk]

As far as i know people people have sex for two reasons.

1) reproduction
2) recreational pleasure

Now if you're having sex to procreate you obviously don't need birth control or condoms so that's not an issue.

But if you are having sex as a recreational activity why is it the government's (tax payer's) job to pay for it?

That would be like asking the government to buy me a new Xbox 1, or to give me a 10 dollar I-tunes card every month.

If you can't afford to buy condoms then you shouldn't be having sex. Just like if i can't afford tickets to redskins games, i shouldn't go to redskins games.

What reason does the government have to provide contraception for the masses?

You don't really expect people to pay for this themselves do you? That is no longer the American way the new way is I'm entitled to everything even if someone else has to pay for it.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Insulation isn't that expensive.

Ever hired a carpenter or other installation expert?

Face it, you are just a garden variety cheapskate.

Probably a crappy tipper, too.

Installed it myself down in Texas. Had a devil of a time doing it. Why am I paying for you to hire someone to do it for you?

Lazy ass.

Texas? Now you are making me LMAO!

Try doing it in a place like North Dakota, where you need upwards of 4-5 times as much.

I pay pros because I want the job done right, and because I'm not a cheapskate like you.

 

[candycorn]

There is a federal role for national defense, not for paying for your BC pills, cheapskate.

Tanks aren't mentioned in the constitution. Sorry.

Even more proof that the far left does not understand the constitution.

I understand it fine just pointing out that not every government expenditure ties back to the constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

Forget about single women

What about married women who do not want more children? Pennies a day vs paying for the little darlings to go to school

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Ever hired a carpenter or other installation expert?

Face it, you are just a garden variety cheapskate.

Probably a crappy tipper, too.

Installed it myself down in Texas. Had a devil of a time doing it. Why am I paying for you to hire someone to do it for you?

Lazy ass.

Texas? Now you are making me LMAO!

Try doing it in a place like North Dakota, where you need upwards of 4-5 times as much.

I pay pros because I want the job done right, and because I'm not a cheapskate like you.

But you sure do love cheap shots. Can't stay on topic because you're losing your ass here on this thread? You must be one unhappy ...purse.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Forget about single women

What about married women who do not want more children? Pennies a day vs paying for the little darlings to go to school

Yup.

Average cost to raise a kid: $241,080

Average cost to raise a kid: $241,080 - Aug. 14, 2013

"""From day care to the monthly grocery bill, the cost of raising a child is climbing at a rate that many families can't keep up with.

It will cost an estimated $241,080 for a middle-income couple to raise a child born last year for 18 years, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released Wednesday. That's up almost 3% from 2011 and doesn't even include the cost of college."""

 

[norwegen]

Liberal logic: "Let's create a government benevolence program to justify another government benevolence program."

 

[candycorn]

Ever hired a carpenter or other installation expert?

Face it, you are just a garden variety cheapskate.

Probably a crappy tipper, too.

Installed it myself down in Texas. Had a devil of a time doing it. Why am I paying for you to hire someone to do it for you?

Lazy ass.

Texas? Now you are making me LMAO!

Try doing it in a place like North Dakota, where you need upwards of 4-5 times as much.

I pay pros because I want the job done right, and because I'm not a cheapskate like you.

There is no need for me to subsidize your extravagance.

It's always "PAY ME" PAY ME PAY ME with you people

 

[LoneLaugher]

As far as i know people people have sex for two reasons.

1) reproduction
2) recreational pleasure

Now if you're having sex to procreate you obviously don't need birth control or condoms so that's not an issue.

But if you are having sex as a recreational activity why is it the government's (tax payer's) job to pay for it?

That would be like asking the government to buy me a new Xbox 1, or to give me a 10 dollar I-tunes card every month.

If you can't afford to buy condoms then you shouldn't be having sex. Just like if i can't afford tickets to redskins games, i shouldn't go to redskins games.

What reason does the government have to provide contraception for the masses?

Every study ever done on the matter reports that its much cheaper to fund contraceptive efforts for low-income persons than it is to fund AFDC and other welfare programs down the line.

Like I said. Hostage taking. "Pay for my abortion/birth control or pay for my kid."

Pro-choice: "I get to choose my lifestyle, and you get to pay for it."

You might try to approach this issue from a more reasonable position. You seem to be able to do that in many cases. Why not this one?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Liberal logic: "Let's create a government benevolence program to justify another government benevolence program."

Better then having what's going on in Chicago! Oh'I ment Somalia that's your model of a nation.

 

[Kosh]

Tanks aren't mentioned in the constitution. Sorry.

Even more proof that the far left does not understand the constitution.

I understand it fine just pointing out that not every government expenditure ties back to the constitution.

And thus proving once again that the far left does not understand the constitution.

The more they post the more they show they have no clue about anything other than their preprogrammed far left propaganda.

 

[Kosh]

Liberal logic: "Let's create a government benevolence program to justify another government benevolence program."

Actually if you posted it as far left logic you would have been more spot on.