Why the fight against Birth Control?

[Pumpkin Row]

I do want to. Hence saying it should be illegal. If Liberals actually upheld the constitution in the first place, abortion wouldn't be a thing.

Birth control doesn't help people make the right decision, it encourages being a whore. You're suggesting counterproductive steps to solve a problem, much like all Liberal policies.

Cast them out of humanity? Not so, most people are awful, I'm considering them a part of that. In the real world, one takes responsibility for their actions and deals with it, rather than relying on tax payers to cover for it. If people actually start realizing what such a mistake can do to their lives, they'll be less likely to make those mistakes... much like criminals being punished. Liberals are attempting to remove the consequences of these mistakes, thus encouraging said mistakes... much like banning the death penalty.

I don't know~

Of course...you do realize a number of innocent people have been executed?

Fewer innocent people would be hurt if criminals were executed, even assuming a few innocent people died along the way~

Woa kid who is teaching you this bullshit?
.

Criminals get back on the street after serving their sentence and hurt more innocent people. If they were dead, they wouldn't hurt anyone. They're better off dead.

I used to think like you kill them all innocent or not.. But I read to many stories of innocents being set up and being put to death..

I was in one of the worse jails of all.. Cook county.. Chicago Illinois had to serve 30 days..

The story's you here some true some bullshit..

I was in with killers, rapist the worse of the worse but alot of them were set up.

Ya know it's funny I became friends with most of my inmates.. We would bullshit, play cards mess with the guards..

And most was so happy I got to get out and they were looking at 20 years or so in the prison..

Of course they'd say they were set up. Who admits to committing a crime?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Clearly you and I have different ideas on the role of the government. Teen pregnancies and abortion are not "minute things".

They're minute things, yes. The government doesn't exist to force society to babysit others. Charities and churches exist, which can CHOOSE to take care of things like that. If someone messes up, especially in situations like the one being discussed, nobody else should be obligated to pay for that, it's a case of personal choice and personal responsibility. Eliminating the consequences of someone's actions causes self-entitlement and poor decision-making.

Ignorant claim? Maybe you haven't thought it out that well. Which is kind of ignorant of you when you come to think of it.

Have you taken the opportunity to see what literacy and education rates are in countries where people have to pay for schooling? That should clue you in.

Abraham Lincoln was educated in our public school system. In fact, many important and accomplished people were - wide spectrum from Steve Jobs (founder of Apple) to presidents like Ronald Reagan.

Our public schools vary from bad to excellent (same as private schools) but one thing they do is offer a basic education regardless of whether or not the family can afford it.

Public schools MUST take everyone in their area. Private schools don't. They have the luxury of picking and choosing, which skews test results. So what are these "cheap private schools" going to look like for poor people? When a family has to spend a third or more of it's income on food and rent, how are they going to afford even a "cheap private school" and if it's that cheap, how is it going to be any better than public schools? In fact it would likely be worse.

You also don't think out all the associated issues. Private schools can pick and choose where to locate. They sure aren't going to locate in poor and underserved areas, but where it makes economic sense. So for some families - there are few to no private options. Private schools typically don't have transportation - public schools often do. How is a poor kid, in an inner city going to get out to some suburban private school? Does his family even own a car? Can they take time off of work to drive? Is there public transportation out that far and is it affordable?

What happens to the kids private schools refuse to take? Are they then relegated to some sort of substandard education?

Cheap private schools for poor people is likely to be substandard (since profit is more important than education) and exacerbate the chasm between rich and the poor, and limit upward mobility.

Homeschooling is even worse. Home schooling is a full time job. I know people who home school their kids (at least in the lower grades). In addition, it requires a good amount of knowledge to keep up and teach and that's a huge assumption, particularly if you have parents who might not be well educated themselves. To assume that poor parents can just quite work and do this is pretty elitist in my opinion.

Why don't you give me an example instead of just claiming it?

Being president doesn't make him intelligent by default.

Attributing Steve Jobs' success solely to Government Education is a massive leap.

Ronald Reagan didn't have to be a genius to understand how the economy works, Democrats just tend to be below average in intelligence.

Government education isn't "effective" solely because they're obligated to take everyone. The fact is that Private Education has incentive to take everyone, because there's a demand for education, and the more people they take, the more money they make. That same incentive would cause them to WANT to set up their schools in low income areas, and provide cheap education. Also unlike Government education, there would be incentive to make it quality education, because competition would demand it. The government has no incentive to provide quality education because regardless of how many people attend, or how well-educated the people attending are, the government still makes money from every tax-payer.

Public schools offer transportation because it's not on their dime, it's on every tax-payer.

Neither of my parents have quit work to teach me. Your opinion of homeschooling is just full of assumptions. Parents don't have to be well-educated, either, because the facts come from the books and various sources of information used in the schooling. When the parents are involved, they may offer bits of information, but it's not as though they sit you down and teach you from their memory.

Maybe I am elitist, or maybe I just think that people should take responsibility for their life choices. For example, the decisions that lead them to being poor and keep them there, or their decision to sleep with someone and by extension have a child that they aren't ready for. Maybe the decision not to go to college. I believe that when a person makes a decision, they should take full responsibility for it, and all things that come as a result, and deal with it themselves. Life doesn't take care of you, and nobody should expect it to.

That's fine except that while ABSTINENCE works, ABSTINENCE ONLY PROGRAMS do not have a good track record.

Why not teach abstinence, responsibility, and birth control? Too many kids experiment with sex. They aren't adults. Teach them responsibility but provide the means to make a good choice if they choose to have sex and that choice is birth control.

The idea is not to judge people as "whores" or righteous. It's to prevent the costly mistakes that lack of birth control - teen pregnancies and abortion - have on society.

Because it's not the responsibility of taxpayers to cover for sluts? If they make the mistake, it's their problem, as it should be. If the taxpayers are providing birth control, it's not teaching any form of responsibility, it's further enabling sluts, and encouraging making the wrong decision, it's absolutely counterproductive. Your argument is absolutely backwards.

Saying that they should take responsibility should they choose to make the obvious wrong decision isn't judging them. Sure, I'm judging them, but that's not HOW I'm doing so.

You're still missing the point, it SHOULDN'T have an impact on society, it's not society's mistake, nor society's problem, we are not a collective, that one single person makes a mistake, it's their problem, they can clean it up themselves. They shouldn't have made such a costly mistake in the first place.

Abortion shouldn't be legal in the first place, so it shouldn't be impacting society. We can thank the godless, moral-less Liberals for that.

it's further enabling sluts


You really shouldn't say that..

 

[Coyote]

Listen I love you posting you have a great mind for 15 look up governor Ryan of Illinois.. Yes he went to prison.. But he did the right thing in Illinois when he figured out innocent people were getting put to death.. We can't have that..

.

I like you, too<3

We can have that, so long as mostly the criminals are dying, too. Letting criminals live and continue to plague society, by leeching off of tax dollars and doing the exact same things that put them there in the first place when they're set free.

So your position is it's ok if innocent people are executed as long as it's mostly criminals dying.

How would you feel if you were that innocent person, or it was a family member? I admit, I don't understand your position.

The argument against abortion is that it's ending an innocent life. But when it comes to the death penalty you are willing to end an innocent life.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Listen I love you posting you have a great mind for 15 look up governor Ryan of Illinois.. Yes he went to prison.. But he did the right thing in Illinois when he figured out innocent people were getting put to death.. We can't have that..

.

I like you, too<3

We can have that, so long as mostly the criminals are dying, too. Letting criminals live and continue to plague society, by leeching off of tax dollars and doing the exact same things that put them there in the first place when they're set free.

So your position is it's ok if innocent people are executed as long as it's mostly criminals dying.

How would you feel if you were that innocent person, or it was a family member? I admit, I don't understand your position.

The argument against abortion is that it's ending an innocent life. But when it comes to the death penalty you are willing to end an innocent life.

Me? I'd be fine with that, life is awful, anyway. Family? Oh, it depends which one, really.

Yeah, but abortion is a decision, execution for a crime, we really don't know if they were innocent beforehand.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Clearly you and I have different ideas on the role of the government. Teen pregnancies and abortion are not "minute things".

They're minute things, yes. The government doesn't exist to force society to babysit others. Charities and churches exist, which can CHOOSE to take care of things like that. If someone messes up, especially in situations like the one being discussed, nobody else should be obligated to pay for that, it's a case of personal choice and personal responsibility. Eliminating the consequences of someone's actions causes self-entitlement and poor decision-making.

Ignorant claim? Maybe you haven't thought it out that well. Which is kind of ignorant of you when you come to think of it.

Have you taken the opportunity to see what literacy and education rates are in countries where people have to pay for schooling? That should clue you in.

Abraham Lincoln was educated in our public school system. In fact, many important and accomplished people were - wide spectrum from Steve Jobs (founder of Apple) to presidents like Ronald Reagan.

Our public schools vary from bad to excellent (same as private schools) but one thing they do is offer a basic education regardless of whether or not the family can afford it.

Public schools MUST take everyone in their area. Private schools don't. They have the luxury of picking and choosing, which skews test results. So what are these "cheap private schools" going to look like for poor people? When a family has to spend a third or more of it's income on food and rent, how are they going to afford even a "cheap private school" and if it's that cheap, how is it going to be any better than public schools? In fact it would likely be worse.

You also don't think out all the associated issues. Private schools can pick and choose where to locate. They sure aren't going to locate in poor and underserved areas, but where it makes economic sense. So for some families - there are few to no private options. Private schools typically don't have transportation - public schools often do. How is a poor kid, in an inner city going to get out to some suburban private school? Does his family even own a car? Can they take time off of work to drive? Is there public transportation out that far and is it affordable?

What happens to the kids private schools refuse to take? Are they then relegated to some sort of substandard education?

Cheap private schools for poor people is likely to be substandard (since profit is more important than education) and exacerbate the chasm between rich and the poor, and limit upward mobility.

Homeschooling is even worse. Home schooling is a full time job. I know people who home school their kids (at least in the lower grades). In addition, it requires a good amount of knowledge to keep up and teach and that's a huge assumption, particularly if you have parents who might not be well educated themselves. To assume that poor parents can just quite work and do this is pretty elitist in my opinion.

Why don't you give me an example instead of just claiming it?

Being president doesn't make him intelligent by default.

Attributing Steve Jobs' success solely to Government Education is a massive leap.

Ronald Reagan didn't have to be a genius to understand how the economy works, Democrats just tend to be below average in intelligence.

Government education isn't "effective" solely because they're obligated to take everyone. The fact is that Private Education has incentive to take everyone, because there's a demand for education, and the more people they take, the more money they make. That same incentive would cause them to WANT to set up their schools in low income areas, and provide cheap education. Also unlike Government education, there would be incentive to make it quality education, because competition would demand it. The government has no incentive to provide quality education because regardless of how many people attend, or how well-educated the people attending are, the government still makes money from every tax-payer.

Public schools offer transportation because it's not on their dime, it's on every tax-payer.

Neither of my parents have quit work to teach me. Your opinion of homeschooling is just full of assumptions. Parents don't have to be well-educated, either, because the facts come from the books and various sources of information used in the schooling. When the parents are involved, they may offer bits of information, but it's not as though they sit you down and teach you from their memory.

Maybe I am elitist, or maybe I just think that people should take responsibility for their life choices. For example, the decisions that lead them to being poor and keep them there, or their decision to sleep with someone and by extension have a child that they aren't ready for. Maybe the decision not to go to college. I believe that when a person makes a decision, they should take full responsibility for it, and all things that come as a result, and deal with it themselves. Life doesn't take care of you, and nobody should expect it to.

That's fine except that while ABSTINENCE works, ABSTINENCE ONLY PROGRAMS do not have a good track record.

Why not teach abstinence, responsibility, and birth control? Too many kids experiment with sex. They aren't adults. Teach them responsibility but provide the means to make a good choice if they choose to have sex and that choice is birth control.

The idea is not to judge people as "whores" or righteous. It's to prevent the costly mistakes that lack of birth control - teen pregnancies and abortion - have on society.

Because it's not the responsibility of taxpayers to cover for sluts? If they make the mistake, it's their problem, as it should be. If the taxpayers are providing birth control, it's not teaching any form of responsibility, it's further enabling sluts, and encouraging making the wrong decision, it's absolutely counterproductive. Your argument is absolutely backwards.

Saying that they should take responsibility should they choose to make the obvious wrong decision isn't judging them. Sure, I'm judging them, but that's not HOW I'm doing so.

You're still missing the point, it SHOULDN'T have an impact on society, it's not society's mistake, nor society's problem, we are not a collective, that one single person makes a mistake, it's their problem, they can clean it up themselves. They shouldn't have made such a costly mistake in the first place.

Abortion shouldn't be legal in the first place, so it shouldn't be impacting society. We can thank the godless, moral-less Liberals for that.

it's further enabling sluts


You really shouldn't say that..

Hmm, you're right, it's a dirty word. what if I said "Further enabling immoral women"? Would that make it better? It's the same fact, regardless.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Of course...you do realize a number of innocent people have been executed?

Fewer innocent people would be hurt if criminals were executed, even assuming a few innocent people died along the way~

Woa kid who is teaching you this bullshit?
.

Criminals get back on the street after serving their sentence and hurt more innocent people. If they were dead, they wouldn't hurt anyone. They're better off dead.

I used to think like you kill them all innocent or not.. But I read to many stories of innocents being set up and being put to death..

I was in one of the worse jails of all.. Cook county.. Chicago Illinois had to serve 30 days..

The story's you here some true some bullshit..

I was in with killers, rapist the worse of the worse but alot of them were set up.

Ya know it's funny I became friends with most of my inmates.. We would bullshit, play cards mess with the guards..

And most was so happy I got to get out and they were looking at 20 years or so in the prison..

Of course they'd say they were set up. Who admits to committing a crime?

Your not understanding my wisdom..

Going to cook county jail at first is really scary place.. It's a damn dungeon.. And then they throw you in a cell block with like 30 black guys and like 2 white guys..

All gang bangers And just a few newtrons.. You have to get friends fast..

Remembering back I met alot of cool people in there.. They gave me smokes when I was waiting for my commission money.. I don't know how prison is but even the roughest jails people look out for each other if you give each other respect it's all about respect.. Then they won't jump you.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Clearly you and I have different ideas on the role of the government. Teen pregnancies and abortion are not "minute things".

They're minute things, yes. The government doesn't exist to force society to babysit others. Charities and churches exist, which can CHOOSE to take care of things like that. If someone messes up, especially in situations like the one being discussed, nobody else should be obligated to pay for that, it's a case of personal choice and personal responsibility. Eliminating the consequences of someone's actions causes self-entitlement and poor decision-making.

Ignorant claim? Maybe you haven't thought it out that well. Which is kind of ignorant of you when you come to think of it.

Have you taken the opportunity to see what literacy and education rates are in countries where people have to pay for schooling? That should clue you in.

Abraham Lincoln was educated in our public school system. In fact, many important and accomplished people were - wide spectrum from Steve Jobs (founder of Apple) to presidents like Ronald Reagan.

Our public schools vary from bad to excellent (same as private schools) but one thing they do is offer a basic education regardless of whether or not the family can afford it.

Public schools MUST take everyone in their area. Private schools don't. They have the luxury of picking and choosing, which skews test results. So what are these "cheap private schools" going to look like for poor people? When a family has to spend a third or more of it's income on food and rent, how are they going to afford even a "cheap private school" and if it's that cheap, how is it going to be any better than public schools? In fact it would likely be worse.

You also don't think out all the associated issues. Private schools can pick and choose where to locate. They sure aren't going to locate in poor and underserved areas, but where it makes economic sense. So for some families - there are few to no private options. Private schools typically don't have transportation - public schools often do. How is a poor kid, in an inner city going to get out to some suburban private school? Does his family even own a car? Can they take time off of work to drive? Is there public transportation out that far and is it affordable?

What happens to the kids private schools refuse to take? Are they then relegated to some sort of substandard education?

Cheap private schools for poor people is likely to be substandard (since profit is more important than education) and exacerbate the chasm between rich and the poor, and limit upward mobility.

Homeschooling is even worse. Home schooling is a full time job. I know people who home school their kids (at least in the lower grades). In addition, it requires a good amount of knowledge to keep up and teach and that's a huge assumption, particularly if you have parents who might not be well educated themselves. To assume that poor parents can just quite work and do this is pretty elitist in my opinion.

Why don't you give me an example instead of just claiming it?

Being president doesn't make him intelligent by default.

Attributing Steve Jobs' success solely to Government Education is a massive leap.

Ronald Reagan didn't have to be a genius to understand how the economy works, Democrats just tend to be below average in intelligence.

Government education isn't "effective" solely because they're obligated to take everyone. The fact is that Private Education has incentive to take everyone, because there's a demand for education, and the more people they take, the more money they make. That same incentive would cause them to WANT to set up their schools in low income areas, and provide cheap education. Also unlike Government education, there would be incentive to make it quality education, because competition would demand it. The government has no incentive to provide quality education because regardless of how many people attend, or how well-educated the people attending are, the government still makes money from every tax-payer.

Public schools offer transportation because it's not on their dime, it's on every tax-payer.

Neither of my parents have quit work to teach me. Your opinion of homeschooling is just full of assumptions. Parents don't have to be well-educated, either, because the facts come from the books and various sources of information used in the schooling. When the parents are involved, they may offer bits of information, but it's not as though they sit you down and teach you from their memory.

Maybe I am elitist, or maybe I just think that people should take responsibility for their life choices. For example, the decisions that lead them to being poor and keep them there, or their decision to sleep with someone and by extension have a child that they aren't ready for. Maybe the decision not to go to college. I believe that when a person makes a decision, they should take full responsibility for it, and all things that come as a result, and deal with it themselves. Life doesn't take care of you, and nobody should expect it to.

That's fine except that while ABSTINENCE works, ABSTINENCE ONLY PROGRAMS do not have a good track record.

Why not teach abstinence, responsibility, and birth control? Too many kids experiment with sex. They aren't adults. Teach them responsibility but provide the means to make a good choice if they choose to have sex and that choice is birth control.

The idea is not to judge people as "whores" or righteous. It's to prevent the costly mistakes that lack of birth control - teen pregnancies and abortion - have on society.

Because it's not the responsibility of taxpayers to cover for sluts? If they make the mistake, it's their problem, as it should be. If the taxpayers are providing birth control, it's not teaching any form of responsibility, it's further enabling sluts, and encouraging making the wrong decision, it's absolutely counterproductive. Your argument is absolutely backwards.

Saying that they should take responsibility should they choose to make the obvious wrong decision isn't judging them. Sure, I'm judging them, but that's not HOW I'm doing so.

You're still missing the point, it SHOULDN'T have an impact on society, it's not society's mistake, nor society's problem, we are not a collective, that one single person makes a mistake, it's their problem, they can clean it up themselves. They shouldn't have made such a costly mistake in the first place.

Abortion shouldn't be legal in the first place, so it shouldn't be impacting society. We can thank the godless, moral-less Liberals for that.

it's further enabling sluts


You really shouldn't say that..

Hmm, you're right, it's a dirty word. what if I said "Further enabling immoral women"? Would that make it better? It's the same fact, regardless.

I have a question pumpkin.. What do you consider a slut what's your definition?

I am 51 I slept with like 10 or 12 women in my life..

I was always a faithful guy.. My first wife who died slept around after I left when I was being an Asshat to her.. We got back together again for a little bit and I realize know I treated her like shit.. I didn't abuse her with violence.. But I abused her with words..

So was she a slut? . I used to think that way..

I forgave her.. I realized I was being an asshole and I don't blame her for doing it.

.

 

[Jackson]

A fetus is not a human being, at least not until about the 7th month when it is viable outside of the womb.

Until the 7th month a fetus is just a parasitic growth inside a female's womb.

YOu are just lying to yourself for justification in taking the life of a baby. Admit it.

 

[Coyote]

[QUOTE="Pumpkin Row, post: 15882395, member: 57627]

They're minute things, yes. The government doesn't exist to force society to babysit others. Charities and churches exist, which can CHOOSE to take care of things like that. If someone messes up, especially in situations like the one being discussed, nobody else should be obligated to pay for that, it's a case of personal choice and personal responsibility. Eliminating the consequences of someone's actions causes self-entitlement and poor decision-making.

You and I have very different ideas on the role of government and our responsibility to other people through the government.

When it comes to consequences, I grew up with consequences. No participation trophies. No passing failure. No helmets, elbow pads and knee pads. Here's the thing about learning from consequences - they need to be appropriate to the situation. Recognizing that doesn't mean eliminating consequences. For example, a 12 yr kid gets caught shoplifting. What should the consequences be?

1. Arrest him, charge him, start him on the track through the juvenile justice system.

2. Take him to the police station, call the parents and have a conference.

Which set of consequences is appropriate? If you don't choose #1, the harshest choice, does that mean you're eliminating consequences?

Maybe it depends on the situation.

To wish pregnancy and childbirth on a teen as a "consequence" of casual sex is draconian. Having children is one of the biggest decisions a person will ever make, it's life changing. But a lot teens don't think like that. Our brains aren't fully mature until 25 and in particular the portions which affect impulse control and decision making (which is why car insurance for young people is so much higher).

You can't force someone to take birth control or to take it properly. You can't force someone to NOT have sex if they want to. What you can do is offer them education, including abstinence and responsibility, but if you also offer birth control - the chances that they'll make a RESPONSIBLE choice (maybe not YOUR) choice - but one that prevents pregnancy. But choosing to use birth control is taking responsibility, and setting up the situation to make the right choice is not "eliminating consequences" - they still have to make the right choice.

If they make the wrong choice and get pregnant, then the consequences are harsh. It makes more sense to avoid getting to that point in the first place.

Why don't you give me an example instead of just claiming it?

Being president doesn't make him intelligent by default.

Attributing Steve Jobs' success solely to Government Education is a massive leap.

Ronald Reagan didn't have to be a genius to understand how the economy works, Democrats just tend to be below average in intelligence.

Let's talk about "massive leaps" here. In particular - yours. You're building strawmen by the bale.

I'm not talking about "intelligence".

I never said that Jobs' success is due soley to government education.

Reagan doesn't have to be genius - but he does have to be EDUCATED.

And lastly, an example of what, specifically, do you want me to give you?

Government education isn't "effective" solely because they're obligated to take everyone. The fact is that Private Education has incentive to take everyone, because there's a demand for education, and the more people they take, the more money they make. [/quote

Not exactly. Because just like any other product - those who can't afford it can't buy it. There is a demand for college education - but guess what - they don't take everyone. They have specific minimal standards.

You can't force private entities to take anyone they don't want to - that doesn't meet their standards.

That same incentive would cause them to WANT to set up their schools in low income areas, and provide cheap education. Also unlike Government education, there would be incentive to make it quality education, because competition would demand it. The government has no incentive to provide quality education because regardless of how many people attend, or how well-educated the people attending are, the government still makes money from every tax-payer.

There is no competition for people that can't pay. The incentive is in the wealthier customers or those students meet their standards.

Public schools offer transportation because it's not on their dime, it's on every tax-payer.

Transportation for public schools is part of the cost of public schools - all of which are paid for. However, you didn't answer the question about how students would handle transportation.

Neither of my parents have quit work to teach me. Your opinion of homeschooling is just full of assumptions. Parents don't have to be well-educated, either, because the facts come from the books and various sources of information used in the schooling. When the parents are involved, they may offer bits of information, but it's not as though they sit you down and teach you from their memory.

I'm finding your statements about a lot of things are also full of assumptions. My experience with home schooling is based on parents I know who are full time mothers and actively involved in their children's schooling. They have groups of like minded parents to share resources, classes and educational outings. They also go to conferences to learn more about the home schooling. So, no they don't teach from memory - but they have to have some understanding of the material that they are using. Clearly your experiences are different. I have doubt how a single mother, who may or may not have finished highschool - is going to "home school" while simultaneously being away from home working at Walmart.

Maybe I am elitist, or maybe I just think that people should take responsibility for their life choices. For example, the decisions that lead them to being poor and keep them there, or their decision to sleep with someone and by extension have a child that they aren't ready for. Maybe the decision not to go to college. I believe that when a person makes a decision, they should take full responsibility for it, and all things that come as a result, and deal with it themselves. Life doesn't take care of you, and nobody should expect it to.

Fair enough. But sometimes decisions aren't that. For example - the reasons for poverty are myriad - not just the propaganda that tells us they're all just lazy welfare queens who don't want to work. People might not go to college because they can't afford it (and, considering the huge amount of student dept, that's understandable).

Because it's not the responsibility of taxpayers to cover for sluts? If they make the mistake, it's their problem, as it should be. If the taxpayers are providing birth control, it's not teaching any form of responsibility, it's further enabling sluts, and encouraging making the wrong decision, it's absolutely counterproductive. Your argument is absolutely backwards.

Saying that they should take responsibility should they choose to make the obvious wrong decision isn't judging them. Sure, I'm judging them, but that's not HOW I'm doing so.

You're still missing the point, it SHOULDN'T have an impact on society, it's not society's mistake, nor society's problem, we are not a collective, that one single person makes a mistake, it's their problem, they can clean it up themselves. They shouldn't have made such a costly mistake in the first place.

Abortion shouldn't be legal in the first place, so it shouldn't be impacting society. We can thank the godless, moral-less Liberals for that.

And I think you are missing my point. Society is a collection of people - not just individuals. We have individual responsibility and a collective responsibility. I know we won't agree on that because we have very different views on the role of government.

 

[Coyote]

Listen I love you posting you have a great mind for 15 look up governor Ryan of Illinois.. Yes he went to prison.. But he did the right thing in Illinois when he figured out innocent people were getting put to death.. We can't have that..

.

I like you, too<3

We can have that, so long as mostly the criminals are dying, too. Letting criminals live and continue to plague society, by leeching off of tax dollars and doing the exact same things that put them there in the first place when they're set free.

So your position is it's ok if innocent people are executed as long as it's mostly criminals dying.

How would you feel if you were that innocent person, or it was a family member? I admit, I don't understand your position.

The argument against abortion is that it's ending an innocent life. But when it comes to the death penalty you are willing to end an innocent life.

Me? I'd be fine with that, life is awful, anyway. Family? Oh, it depends which one, really.

Yeah, but abortion is a decision, execution for a crime, we really don't know if they were innocent beforehand.

I'm sorry to hear that Pumpkin. I really am. Life should not be awful for you (((Hugs)))

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You and I have very different ideas on the role of government and our responsibility to other people through the government.

When it comes to consequences, I grew up with consequences. No participation trophies. No passing failure. No helmets, elbow pads and knee pads. Here's the thing about learning from consequences - they need to be appropriate to the situation. Recognizing that doesn't mean eliminating consequences. For example, a 12 yr kid gets caught shoplifting. What should the consequences be?

1. Arrest him, charge him, start him on the track through the juvenile justice system.

2. Take him to the police station, call the parents and have a conference.

Which set of consequences is appropriate? If you don't choose #1, the harshest choice, does that mean you're eliminating consequences?

Maybe it depends on the situation.

To wish pregnancy and childbirth on a teen as a "consequence" of casual sex is draconian. Having children is one of the biggest decisions a person will ever make, it's life changing. But a lot teens don't think like that. Our brains aren't fully mature until 25 and in particular the portions which affect impulse control and decision making (which is why car insurance for young people is so much higher).

You can't force someone to take birth control or to take it properly. You can't force someone to NOT have sex if they want to. What you can do is offer them education, including abstinence and responsibility, but if you also offer birth control - the chances that they'll make a RESPONSIBLE choice (maybe not YOUR) choice - but one that prevents pregnancy. But choosing to use birth control is taking responsibility, and setting up the situation to make the right choice is not "eliminating consequences" - they still have to make the right choice.

If they make the wrong choice and get pregnant, then the consequences are harsh. It makes more sense to avoid getting to that point in the first place.

He should be punished the the fullest extent of the law, because that's how it works in life. He shouldn't have stolen anything.

"Casual sex" is not a concept that should exist. However, the consequences of it, I think, are completely justified, and when someone partakes in it, they should be made to deal with the consequences that occur. Nobody else should be forced to be burdened with their mistake.

They're still in full control of themselves, that's merely an excuse to justify it.

You can't force someone to take birth control or to take it properly. You can't force someone to NOT have sex if they want to. What you can do is offer them education, including abstinence and responsibility, but if you also offer birth control - the chances that they'll make a RESPONSIBLE choice (maybe not YOUR) choice - but one that prevents pregnancy. But choosing to use birth control is taking responsibility, and setting up the situation to make the right choice is not "eliminating consequences" - they still have to make the right choice.

They're capable of learning, they don't have to be forced.

Offering birth control encourages having sex, which is against what would be taught in this hypothetical class you mentioned. "We're going to teach you that you shouldn't be an immoral person, but here's birth control in case you totally ignore us and decide to anyway!". Like I keep saying, you're offering backwards 'solutions'.

Let's talk about "massive leaps" here. In particular - yours. You're building strawmen by the bale.

I'm not talking about "intelligence".

I never said that Jobs' success is due soley to government education.

Reagan doesn't have to be genius - but he does have to be EDUCATED.

And lastly, an example of what, specifically, do you want me to give you?

You're attributing their education more to the school they attended than, for example, their parents or interactions. Which, given our garbage education system, is less than believable.

There is no competition for people that can't pay. The incentive is in the wealthier customers or those students meet their standards.

What makes you think they have to choose one or the other? With a demand for something, there's the private sector. If there's money to be made, there's the private sector. The only people that wouldn't be able to afford education are those without jobs, in which case, guess who's fault that is?

Transportation for public schools is part of the cost of public schools - all of which are paid for. However, you didn't answer the question about how students would handle transportation.

Parents have vehicles, otherwise bikes and legs are fantastic. There's also the fact that if they feel they're losing out on money due to lack of transportation, they can offer it.

I'm finding your statements about a lot of things are also full of assumptions. My experience with home schooling is based on parents I know who are full time mothers and actively involved in their children's schooling. They have groups of like minded parents to share resources, classes and educational outings. They also go to conferences to learn more about the home schooling. So, no they don't teach from memory - but they have to have some understanding of the material that they are using. Clearly your experiences are different. I have doubt how a single mother, who may or may not have finished highschool - is going to "home school" while simultaneously being away from home working at Walmart.

The degree my parents are involved in my schooling is nearly nonexistent, so they really don't HAVE to know the subjects, or be involved much. I guess said single mother should have either married properly or gotten married to start with, huh? Otherwise, private schooling is an option.

Fair enough. But sometimes decisions aren't that. For example - the reasons for poverty are myriad - not just the propaganda that tells us they're all just lazy welfare queens who don't want to work. People might not go to college because they can't afford it (and, considering the huge amount of student dept, that's understandable).

Personal laziness and personal failure are what makes and KEEPS people poor. Otherwise, they'd have bettered their situation at some point.

Low income families have no excuse for not going to college, since Federal Aid covers nearly everything. All my oldest brother had to pay for was books, and even most of those he was repaid for. He has absolutely no student debt, and only works part time. My father went into the military, and is low income, he's actually MAKING money going to college.

And I think you are missing my point. Society is a collection of people - not just individuals. We have individual responsibility and a collective responsibility. I know we won't agree on that because we have very different views on the role of government.

There is no collective responsibility other than not infringing on each others rights. Everything else is optional.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Clearly you and I have different ideas on the role of the government. Teen pregnancies and abortion are not "minute things".

They're minute things, yes. The government doesn't exist to force society to babysit others. Charities and churches exist, which can CHOOSE to take care of things like that. If someone messes up, especially in situations like the one being discussed, nobody else should be obligated to pay for that, it's a case of personal choice and personal responsibility. Eliminating the consequences of someone's actions causes self-entitlement and poor decision-making.

Ignorant claim? Maybe you haven't thought it out that well. Which is kind of ignorant of you when you come to think of it.

Have you taken the opportunity to see what literacy and education rates are in countries where people have to pay for schooling? That should clue you in.

Abraham Lincoln was educated in our public school system. In fact, many important and accomplished people were - wide spectrum from Steve Jobs (founder of Apple) to presidents like Ronald Reagan.

Our public schools vary from bad to excellent (same as private schools) but one thing they do is offer a basic education regardless of whether or not the family can afford it.

Public schools MUST take everyone in their area. Private schools don't. They have the luxury of picking and choosing, which skews test results. So what are these "cheap private schools" going to look like for poor people? When a family has to spend a third or more of it's income on food and rent, how are they going to afford even a "cheap private school" and if it's that cheap, how is it going to be any better than public schools? In fact it would likely be worse.

You also don't think out all the associated issues. Private schools can pick and choose where to locate. They sure aren't going to locate in poor and underserved areas, but where it makes economic sense. So for some families - there are few to no private options. Private schools typically don't have transportation - public schools often do. How is a poor kid, in an inner city going to get out to some suburban private school? Does his family even own a car? Can they take time off of work to drive? Is there public transportation out that far and is it affordable?

What happens to the kids private schools refuse to take? Are they then relegated to some sort of substandard education?

Cheap private schools for poor people is likely to be substandard (since profit is more important than education) and exacerbate the chasm between rich and the poor, and limit upward mobility.

Homeschooling is even worse. Home schooling is a full time job. I know people who home school their kids (at least in the lower grades). In addition, it requires a good amount of knowledge to keep up and teach and that's a huge assumption, particularly if you have parents who might not be well educated themselves. To assume that poor parents can just quite work and do this is pretty elitist in my opinion.

Why don't you give me an example instead of just claiming it?

Being president doesn't make him intelligent by default.

Attributing Steve Jobs' success solely to Government Education is a massive leap.

Ronald Reagan didn't have to be a genius to understand how the economy works, Democrats just tend to be below average in intelligence.

Government education isn't "effective" solely because they're obligated to take everyone. The fact is that Private Education has incentive to take everyone, because there's a demand for education, and the more people they take, the more money they make. That same incentive would cause them to WANT to set up their schools in low income areas, and provide cheap education. Also unlike Government education, there would be incentive to make it quality education, because competition would demand it. The government has no incentive to provide quality education because regardless of how many people attend, or how well-educated the people attending are, the government still makes money from every tax-payer.

Public schools offer transportation because it's not on their dime, it's on every tax-payer.

Neither of my parents have quit work to teach me. Your opinion of homeschooling is just full of assumptions. Parents don't have to be well-educated, either, because the facts come from the books and various sources of information used in the schooling. When the parents are involved, they may offer bits of information, but it's not as though they sit you down and teach you from their memory.

Maybe I am elitist, or maybe I just think that people should take responsibility for their life choices. For example, the decisions that lead them to being poor and keep them there, or their decision to sleep with someone and by extension have a child that they aren't ready for. Maybe the decision not to go to college. I believe that when a person makes a decision, they should take full responsibility for it, and all things that come as a result, and deal with it themselves. Life doesn't take care of you, and nobody should expect it to.

That's fine except that while ABSTINENCE works, ABSTINENCE ONLY PROGRAMS do not have a good track record.

Why not teach abstinence, responsibility, and birth control? Too many kids experiment with sex. They aren't adults. Teach them responsibility but provide the means to make a good choice if they choose to have sex and that choice is birth control.

The idea is not to judge people as "whores" or righteous. It's to prevent the costly mistakes that lack of birth control - teen pregnancies and abortion - have on society.

Because it's not the responsibility of taxpayers to cover for sluts? If they make the mistake, it's their problem, as it should be. If the taxpayers are providing birth control, it's not teaching any form of responsibility, it's further enabling sluts, and encouraging making the wrong decision, it's absolutely counterproductive. Your argument is absolutely backwards.

Saying that they should take responsibility should they choose to make the obvious wrong decision isn't judging them. Sure, I'm judging them, but that's not HOW I'm doing so.

You're still missing the point, it SHOULDN'T have an impact on society, it's not society's mistake, nor society's problem, we are not a collective, that one single person makes a mistake, it's their problem, they can clean it up themselves. They shouldn't have made such a costly mistake in the first place.

Abortion shouldn't be legal in the first place, so it shouldn't be impacting society. We can thank the godless, moral-less Liberals for that.

it's further enabling sluts


You really shouldn't say that..

Hmm, you're right, it's a dirty word. what if I said "Further enabling immoral women"? Would that make it better? It's the same fact, regardless.

I have a question pumpkin.. What do you consider a slut what's your definition?

I am 51 I slept with like 10 or 12 women in my life..

I was always a faithful guy.. My first wife who died slept around after I left when I was being an Asshat to her.. We got back together again for a little bit and I realize know I treated her like shit.. I didn't abuse her with violence.. But I abused her with words..

So was she a slut? . I used to think that way..

I forgave her.. I realized I was being an asshole and I don't blame her for doing it.

.

Oh, but do my personal harsh moral standards really mean anything to you? I'm just a bitter, hateful, judgmental child. I'll spare you the trouble of thinking of a way to 'correct' my perception.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Clearly you and I have different ideas on the role of the government. Teen pregnancies and abortion are not "minute things".

They're minute things, yes. The government doesn't exist to force society to babysit others. Charities and churches exist, which can CHOOSE to take care of things like that. If someone messes up, especially in situations like the one being discussed, nobody else should be obligated to pay for that, it's a case of personal choice and personal responsibility. Eliminating the consequences of someone's actions causes self-entitlement and poor decision-making.

Ignorant claim? Maybe you haven't thought it out that well. Which is kind of ignorant of you when you come to think of it.

Have you taken the opportunity to see what literacy and education rates are in countries where people have to pay for schooling? That should clue you in.

Abraham Lincoln was educated in our public school system. In fact, many important and accomplished people were - wide spectrum from Steve Jobs (founder of Apple) to presidents like Ronald Reagan.

Our public schools vary from bad to excellent (same as private schools) but one thing they do is offer a basic education regardless of whether or not the family can afford it.

Public schools MUST take everyone in their area. Private schools don't. They have the luxury of picking and choosing, which skews test results. So what are these "cheap private schools" going to look like for poor people? When a family has to spend a third or more of it's income on food and rent, how are they going to afford even a "cheap private school" and if it's that cheap, how is it going to be any better than public schools? In fact it would likely be worse.

You also don't think out all the associated issues. Private schools can pick and choose where to locate. They sure aren't going to locate in poor and underserved areas, but where it makes economic sense. So for some families - there are few to no private options. Private schools typically don't have transportation - public schools often do. How is a poor kid, in an inner city going to get out to some suburban private school? Does his family even own a car? Can they take time off of work to drive? Is there public transportation out that far and is it affordable?

What happens to the kids private schools refuse to take? Are they then relegated to some sort of substandard education?

Cheap private schools for poor people is likely to be substandard (since profit is more important than education) and exacerbate the chasm between rich and the poor, and limit upward mobility.

Homeschooling is even worse. Home schooling is a full time job. I know people who home school their kids (at least in the lower grades). In addition, it requires a good amount of knowledge to keep up and teach and that's a huge assumption, particularly if you have parents who might not be well educated themselves. To assume that poor parents can just quite work and do this is pretty elitist in my opinion.

Why don't you give me an example instead of just claiming it?

Being president doesn't make him intelligent by default.

Attributing Steve Jobs' success solely to Government Education is a massive leap.

Ronald Reagan didn't have to be a genius to understand how the economy works, Democrats just tend to be below average in intelligence.

Government education isn't "effective" solely because they're obligated to take everyone. The fact is that Private Education has incentive to take everyone, because there's a demand for education, and the more people they take, the more money they make. That same incentive would cause them to WANT to set up their schools in low income areas, and provide cheap education. Also unlike Government education, there would be incentive to make it quality education, because competition would demand it. The government has no incentive to provide quality education because regardless of how many people attend, or how well-educated the people attending are, the government still makes money from every tax-payer.

Public schools offer transportation because it's not on their dime, it's on every tax-payer.

Neither of my parents have quit work to teach me. Your opinion of homeschooling is just full of assumptions. Parents don't have to be well-educated, either, because the facts come from the books and various sources of information used in the schooling. When the parents are involved, they may offer bits of information, but it's not as though they sit you down and teach you from their memory.

Maybe I am elitist, or maybe I just think that people should take responsibility for their life choices. For example, the decisions that lead them to being poor and keep them there, or their decision to sleep with someone and by extension have a child that they aren't ready for. Maybe the decision not to go to college. I believe that when a person makes a decision, they should take full responsibility for it, and all things that come as a result, and deal with it themselves. Life doesn't take care of you, and nobody should expect it to.

That's fine except that while ABSTINENCE works, ABSTINENCE ONLY PROGRAMS do not have a good track record.

Why not teach abstinence, responsibility, and birth control? Too many kids experiment with sex. They aren't adults. Teach them responsibility but provide the means to make a good choice if they choose to have sex and that choice is birth control.

The idea is not to judge people as "whores" or righteous. It's to prevent the costly mistakes that lack of birth control - teen pregnancies and abortion - have on society.

Because it's not the responsibility of taxpayers to cover for sluts? If they make the mistake, it's their problem, as it should be. If the taxpayers are providing birth control, it's not teaching any form of responsibility, it's further enabling sluts, and encouraging making the wrong decision, it's absolutely counterproductive. Your argument is absolutely backwards.

Saying that they should take responsibility should they choose to make the obvious wrong decision isn't judging them. Sure, I'm judging them, but that's not HOW I'm doing so.

You're still missing the point, it SHOULDN'T have an impact on society, it's not society's mistake, nor society's problem, we are not a collective, that one single person makes a mistake, it's their problem, they can clean it up themselves. They shouldn't have made such a costly mistake in the first place.

Abortion shouldn't be legal in the first place, so it shouldn't be impacting society. We can thank the godless, moral-less Liberals for that.

it's further enabling sluts


You really shouldn't say that..

Hmm, you're right, it's a dirty word. what if I said "Further enabling immoral women"? Would that make it better? It's the same fact, regardless.

I have a question pumpkin.. What do you consider a slut what's your definition?

I am 51 I slept with like 10 or 12 women in my life..

I was always a faithful guy.. My first wife who died slept around after I left when I was being an Asshat to her.. We got back together again for a little bit and I realize know I treated her like shit.. I didn't abuse her with violence.. But I abused her with words..

So was she a slut? . I used to think that way..

I forgave her.. I realized I was being an asshole and I don't blame her for doing it.

.

Oh, but does my personal harsh moral standards really mean anything to you? I'm just a bitter, hateful, judgmental child. I'll save you spare you the trouble of thinking of a way to 'correct' my perception.

What pumpkin? Your not a child you have knowledge and some wisdom.. Trust me I already told you you're going to be very good when you grow up.. But I think you're leaning to much right at 15... I am not telling you and have sex or do drugs.. But go out and have fun.. Date guys your age go to a movie.... Have fun..

 

[Wyatt earp]

They're minute things, yes. The government doesn't exist to force society to babysit others. Charities and churches exist, which can CHOOSE to take care of things like that. If someone messes up, especially in situations like the one being discussed, nobody else should be obligated to pay for that, it's a case of personal choice and personal responsibility. Eliminating the consequences of someone's actions causes self-entitlement and poor decision-making.

Why don't you give me an example instead of just claiming it?

Being president doesn't make him intelligent by default.

Attributing Steve Jobs' success solely to Government Education is a massive leap.

Ronald Reagan didn't have to be a genius to understand how the economy works, Democrats just tend to be below average in intelligence.

Government education isn't "effective" solely because they're obligated to take everyone. The fact is that Private Education has incentive to take everyone, because there's a demand for education, and the more people they take, the more money they make. That same incentive would cause them to WANT to set up their schools in low income areas, and provide cheap education. Also unlike Government education, there would be incentive to make it quality education, because competition would demand it. The government has no incentive to provide quality education because regardless of how many people attend, or how well-educated the people attending are, the government still makes money from every tax-payer.

Public schools offer transportation because it's not on their dime, it's on every tax-payer.

Neither of my parents have quit work to teach me. Your opinion of homeschooling is just full of assumptions. Parents don't have to be well-educated, either, because the facts come from the books and various sources of information used in the schooling. When the parents are involved, they may offer bits of information, but it's not as though they sit you down and teach you from their memory.

Maybe I am elitist, or maybe I just think that people should take responsibility for their life choices. For example, the decisions that lead them to being poor and keep them there, or their decision to sleep with someone and by extension have a child that they aren't ready for. Maybe the decision not to go to college. I believe that when a person makes a decision, they should take full responsibility for it, and all things that come as a result, and deal with it themselves. Life doesn't take care of you, and nobody should expect it to.



Because it's not the responsibility of taxpayers to cover for sluts? If they make the mistake, it's their problem, as it should be. If the taxpayers are providing birth control, it's not teaching any form of responsibility, it's further enabling sluts, and encouraging making the wrong decision, it's absolutely counterproductive. Your argument is absolutely backwards.

Saying that they should take responsibility should they choose to make the obvious wrong decision isn't judging them. Sure, I'm judging them, but that's not HOW I'm doing so.

You're still missing the point, it SHOULDN'T have an impact on society, it's not society's mistake, nor society's problem, we are not a collective, that one single person makes a mistake, it's their problem, they can clean it up themselves. They shouldn't have made such a costly mistake in the first place.

Abortion shouldn't be legal in the first place, so it shouldn't be impacting society. We can thank the godless, moral-less Liberals for that.

it's further enabling sluts


You really shouldn't say that..

Hmm, you're right, it's a dirty word. what if I said "Further enabling immoral women"? Would that make it better? It's the same fact, regardless.

I have a question pumpkin.. What do you consider a slut what's your definition?

I am 51 I slept with like 10 or 12 women in my life..

I was always a faithful guy.. My first wife who died slept around after I left when I was being an Asshat to her.. We got back together again for a little bit and I realize know I treated her like shit.. I didn't abuse her with violence.. But I abused her with words..

So was she a slut? . I used to think that way..

I forgave her.. I realized I was being an asshole and I don't blame her for doing it.

.

Oh, but does my personal harsh moral standards really mean anything to you? I'm just a bitter, hateful, judgmental child. I'll save you spare you the trouble of thinking of a way to 'correct' my perception.

What pumpkin? Your not a child you have knowledge and some wisdom.. Trust me I already told you you're going to be very good when you grow up.. But I think you're leaning to much right at 15... I am not telling you and have sex or do drugs.. But go out and have fun.. Date guys your age go to a movie.... Have fun..

Pumpkin enjoy life at 15. You will never get that back

 

[Wyatt earp]

it's further enabling sluts


You really shouldn't say that..

Hmm, you're right, it's a dirty word. what if I said "Further enabling immoral women"? Would that make it better? It's the same fact, regardless.

I have a question pumpkin.. What do you consider a slut what's your definition?

I am 51 I slept with like 10 or 12 women in my life..

I was always a faithful guy.. My first wife who died slept around after I left when I was being an Asshat to her.. We got back together again for a little bit and I realize know I treated her like shit.. I didn't abuse her with violence.. But I abused her with words..

So was she a slut? . I used to think that way..

I forgave her.. I realized I was being an asshole and I don't blame her for doing it.

.

Oh, but does my personal harsh moral standards really mean anything to you? I'm just a bitter, hateful, judgmental child. I'll save you spare you the trouble of thinking of a way to 'correct' my perception.

What pumpkin? Your not a child you have knowledge and some wisdom.. Trust me I already told you you're going to be very good when you grow up.. But I think you're leaning to much right at 15... I am not telling you and have sex or do drugs.. But go out and have fun.. Date guys your age go to a movie.... Have fun..

Pumpkin enjoy life at 15. You will never get that back

Pumpkin I don't want you to turn out like
Miley Cyrus

 

[Coyote]

You want to make them take responsibility but you don't want to make that choice any easier by providing free bc.

You think abortion is horrible but you don't want to reduce the rates by making birth control free.

You want them to suffer the consequences for their bad choices but those consequences may include children which you also don't want to support on the government dime.

It seems that it's not just about personal responsibility, it's about moral judgements and punishment.

Of course it's horrible, and unconstitutional, which is why it should be illegal. Yet you don't seem to think that people should be held accountable for their actions. If people are given birth control with other people's money, they aren't being held accountable.

Guess they should think about that before sleeping around.

Not true. Nobody else should be forced to pay for someone else's stuff. Something liberals seem take as the solution to literally everything. Something's wrong with society? Let everyone shirk their own responsibilities and everyone else can pay for it.

If you think abortion is horrible, then why don't you want to take steps to reduce it? If free birth control and education help people make the right choices, it makes sense to do it.

Your attitude seems more about punishment that responsibility and doesn't seem like it would do anything about actually preventing the problem . You have labeled them all whores and cast them out of humanity.

Do you support sex education in schools?

I do want to. Hence saying it should be illegal. If Liberals actually upheld the constitution in the first place, abortion wouldn't be a thing.

Birth control doesn't help people make the right decision, it encourages being a whore. You're suggesting counterproductive steps to solve a problem, much like all Liberal policies.

Cast them out of humanity? Not so, most people are awful, I'm considering them a part of that. In the real world, one takes responsibility for their actions and deals with it, rather than relying on tax payers to cover for it. If people actually start realizing what such a mistake can do to their lives, they'll be less likely to make those mistakes... much like criminals being punished. Liberals are attempting to remove the consequences of these mistakes, thus encouraging said mistakes... much like banning the death penalty.

I don't know~

Of course...you do realize a number of innocent people have been executed?

Provide ACTUAL evidence an innocent was put to death because of the death penalty.

How Many Innocent People Are Sentenced To Death?
One in 25 Sentenced to Death in the U.S. Is Innocent
10 Innocent People Who Were Tragically Executed - Listverse

 

[Dragonlady]

Seriously...I just don't get it.

What's wrong with letting women have it?

The argument that they shouldn't have it free doesn't fly. ACA includes a bunch of different free items: Preventive care benefits for adults - but I have yet to hear an argument against aspirin or vaccinations being offered and birth control is a relatively cheap thing to offer.

The Pill is, as of this time, the most reliable method of pregnancy prevention. Yes...abstinence itself works, but isn't realistic as few people stick with it and, frankly, why should they if the pill can offer a more reliable option if they don't want to be abstinent? There is a direct correlation between preventing unwanted pregnancies, particularly teens, and the availability of reliable contraception.

Yes you have. You just chose to abandon the thread when faced with the answer. So at the risk of sounding redundant...

"You said "free". And it's not. Buy as much as you like. I don't give a shit. Just stay out of my wallet. You'd get pissed if someone involved you in their sex for pleasure, against your will... Wouldn't you? Its called rape. Then don't involve other people against their will, in your sex for pleasure. Buy your own shit. Make your own decisions. And take responsibility for your own decisions."- Vastator

Birth control should be included in all medical plans sold. Period. End of story. If your employer pays for your insurance, it doesn't matter. Your birth control is none of your employer's business. Just as their religious views should be none of your concern.

 

[Dragonlady]

Clearly you and I have different ideas on the role of the government. Teen pregnancies and abortion are not "minute things".

They're minute things, yes. The government doesn't exist to force society to babysit others. Charities and churches exist, which can CHOOSE to take care of things like that. If someone messes up, especially in situations like the one being discussed, nobody else should be obligated to pay for that, it's a case of personal choice and personal responsibility. Eliminating the consequences of someone's actions causes self-entitlement and poor decision-making.

Ignorant claim? Maybe you haven't thought it out that well. Which is kind of ignorant of you when you come to think of it.

Have you taken the opportunity to see what literacy and education rates are in countries where people have to pay for schooling? That should clue you in.

Abraham Lincoln was educated in our public school system. In fact, many important and accomplished people were - wide spectrum from Steve Jobs (founder of Apple) to presidents like Ronald Reagan.

Our public schools vary from bad to excellent (same as private schools) but one thing they do is offer a basic education regardless of whether or not the family can afford it.

Public schools MUST take everyone in their area. Private schools don't. They have the luxury of picking and choosing, which skews test results. So what are these "cheap private schools" going to look like for poor people? When a family has to spend a third or more of it's income on food and rent, how are they going to afford even a "cheap private school" and if it's that cheap, how is it going to be any better than public schools? In fact it would likely be worse.

You also don't think out all the associated issues. Private schools can pick and choose where to locate. They sure aren't going to locate in poor and underserved areas, but where it makes economic sense. So for some families - there are few to no private options. Private schools typically don't have transportation - public schools often do. How is a poor kid, in an inner city going to get out to some suburban private school? Does his family even own a car? Can they take time off of work to drive? Is there public transportation out that far and is it affordable?

What happens to the kids private schools refuse to take? Are they then relegated to some sort of substandard education?

Cheap private schools for poor people is likely to be substandard (since profit is more important than education) and exacerbate the chasm between rich and the poor, and limit upward mobility.

Homeschooling is even worse. Home schooling is a full time job. I know people who home school their kids (at least in the lower grades). In addition, it requires a good amount of knowledge to keep up and teach and that's a huge assumption, particularly if you have parents who might not be well educated themselves. To assume that poor parents can just quite work and do this is pretty elitist in my opinion.

Why don't you give me an example instead of just claiming it?

Being president doesn't make him intelligent by default.

Attributing Steve Jobs' success solely to Government Education is a massive leap.

Ronald Reagan didn't have to be a genius to understand how the economy works, Democrats just tend to be below average in intelligence.

Government education isn't "effective" solely because they're obligated to take everyone. The fact is that Private Education has incentive to take everyone, because there's a demand for education, and the more people they take, the more money they make. That same incentive would cause them to WANT to set up their schools in low income areas, and provide cheap education. Also unlike Government education, there would be incentive to make it quality education, because competition would demand it. The government has no incentive to provide quality education because regardless of how many people attend, or how well-educated the people attending are, the government still makes money from every tax-payer.

Public schools offer transportation because it's not on their dime, it's on every tax-payer.

Neither of my parents have quit work to teach me. Your opinion of homeschooling is just full of assumptions. Parents don't have to be well-educated, either, because the facts come from the books and various sources of information used in the schooling. When the parents are involved, they may offer bits of information, but it's not as though they sit you down and teach you from their memory.

Maybe I am elitist, or maybe I just think that people should take responsibility for their life choices. For example, the decisions that lead them to being poor and keep them there, or their decision to sleep with someone and by extension have a child that they aren't ready for. Maybe the decision not to go to college. I believe that when a person makes a decision, they should take full responsibility for it, and all things that come as a result, and deal with it themselves. Life doesn't take care of you, and nobody should expect it to.

That's fine except that while ABSTINENCE works, ABSTINENCE ONLY PROGRAMS do not have a good track record.

Why not teach abstinence, responsibility, and birth control? Too many kids experiment with sex. They aren't adults. Teach them responsibility but provide the means to make a good choice if they choose to have sex and that choice is birth control.

The idea is not to judge people as "whores" or righteous. It's to prevent the costly mistakes that lack of birth control - teen pregnancies and abortion - have on society.

Because it's not the responsibility of taxpayers to cover for sluts? If they make the mistake, it's their problem, as it should be. If the taxpayers are providing birth control, it's not teaching any form of responsibility, it's further enabling sluts, and encouraging making the wrong decision, it's absolutely counterproductive. Your argument is absolutely backwards.

Saying that they should take responsibility should they choose to make the obvious wrong decision isn't judging them. Sure, I'm judging them, but that's not HOW I'm doing so.

You're still missing the point, it SHOULDN'T have an impact on society, it's not society's mistake, nor society's problem, we are not a collective, that one single person makes a mistake, it's their problem, they can clean it up themselves. They shouldn't have made such a costly mistake in the first place.

Abortion shouldn't be legal in the first place, so it shouldn't be impacting society. We can thank the godless, moral-less Liberals for that.

it's further enabling sluts


You really shouldn't say that..

Hmm, you're right, it's a dirty word. what if I said "Further enabling immoral women"? Would that make it better? It's the same fact, regardless.

I have a question pumpkin.. What do you consider a slut what's your definition?

I am 51 I slept with like 10 or 12 women in my life..

I was always a faithful guy.. My first wife who died slept around after I left when I was being an Asshat to her.. We got back together again for a little bit and I realize know I treated her like shit.. I didn't abuse her with violence.. But I abused her with words..

So was she a slut? . I used to think that way..

I forgave her.. I realized I was being an asshole and I don't blame her for doing it.

.

Oh, but do my personal harsh moral standards really mean anything to you? I'm just a bitter, hateful, judgmental child. I'll spare you the trouble of thinking of a way to 'correct' my perception.

You're not getting laid and you don't want anyone else to get something you can't have.

Casual sex isn't nearly the problem you believe it to be. In fact, there are some forms of cancer which are more prevalent in people who live chaste lives. For example, nuns have a much higher rate of breast cancer than the general population.

There is a lot to be said for having sex, outside of the obvious. Humans are not meant to be celibate. We're not designed that way. The instinct to procreate is second only to the survival instinct in humans.

I find your "morality" to be laughable. Having sex is a wonderful thing. God wouldn't issue the equipment if He hadn't meant for us to use it.

There are many reasons to have a "casual" relationship, and if both parties are mature, sober, and respectful of one another, I see no problem with it. Where there is a power imbalance, coercion, or abuse, it is immoral.

 

[SYTFE]

They're minute things, yes. The government doesn't exist to force society to babysit others. Charities and churches exist, which can CHOOSE to take care of things like that. If someone messes up, especially in situations like the one being discussed, nobody else should be obligated to pay for that, it's a case of personal choice and personal responsibility. Eliminating the consequences of someone's actions causes self-entitlement and poor decision-making.

Why don't you give me an example instead of just claiming it?

Being president doesn't make him intelligent by default.

Attributing Steve Jobs' success solely to Government Education is a massive leap.

Ronald Reagan didn't have to be a genius to understand how the economy works, Democrats just tend to be below average in intelligence.

Government education isn't "effective" solely because they're obligated to take everyone. The fact is that Private Education has incentive to take everyone, because there's a demand for education, and the more people they take, the more money they make. That same incentive would cause them to WANT to set up their schools in low income areas, and provide cheap education. Also unlike Government education, there would be incentive to make it quality education, because competition would demand it. The government has no incentive to provide quality education because regardless of how many people attend, or how well-educated the people attending are, the government still makes money from every tax-payer.

Public schools offer transportation because it's not on their dime, it's on every tax-payer.

Neither of my parents have quit work to teach me. Your opinion of homeschooling is just full of assumptions. Parents don't have to be well-educated, either, because the facts come from the books and various sources of information used in the schooling. When the parents are involved, they may offer bits of information, but it's not as though they sit you down and teach you from their memory.

Maybe I am elitist, or maybe I just think that people should take responsibility for their life choices. For example, the decisions that lead them to being poor and keep them there, or their decision to sleep with someone and by extension have a child that they aren't ready for. Maybe the decision not to go to college. I believe that when a person makes a decision, they should take full responsibility for it, and all things that come as a result, and deal with it themselves. Life doesn't take care of you, and nobody should expect it to.



Because it's not the responsibility of taxpayers to cover for sluts? If they make the mistake, it's their problem, as it should be. If the taxpayers are providing birth control, it's not teaching any form of responsibility, it's further enabling sluts, and encouraging making the wrong decision, it's absolutely counterproductive. Your argument is absolutely backwards.

Saying that they should take responsibility should they choose to make the obvious wrong decision isn't judging them. Sure, I'm judging them, but that's not HOW I'm doing so.

You're still missing the point, it SHOULDN'T have an impact on society, it's not society's mistake, nor society's problem, we are not a collective, that one single person makes a mistake, it's their problem, they can clean it up themselves. They shouldn't have made such a costly mistake in the first place.

Abortion shouldn't be legal in the first place, so it shouldn't be impacting society. We can thank the godless, moral-less Liberals for that.

it's further enabling sluts


You really shouldn't say that..

Hmm, you're right, it's a dirty word. what if I said "Further enabling immoral women"? Would that make it better? It's the same fact, regardless.

I have a question pumpkin.. What do you consider a slut what's your definition?

I am 51 I slept with like 10 or 12 women in my life..

I was always a faithful guy.. My first wife who died slept around after I left when I was being an Asshat to her.. We got back together again for a little bit and I realize know I treated her like shit.. I didn't abuse her with violence.. But I abused her with words..

So was she a slut? . I used to think that way..

I forgave her.. I realized I was being an asshole and I don't blame her for doing it.

.

Oh, but does my personal harsh moral standards really mean anything to you? I'm just a bitter, hateful, judgmental child. I'll save you spare you the trouble of thinking of a way to 'correct' my perception.

What pumpkin? Your not a child you have knowledge and some wisdom.. Trust me I already told you you're going to be very good when you grow up.. But I think you're leaning to much right at 15... I am not telling you and have sex or do drugs.. But go out and have fun.. Date guys your age go to a movie.... Have fun..

Just an FYI -- Pumpkin is not a 15 year old girl. That account is operated by a "he," namely a middle aged white conservative male trying to fulfill some sick fantasy.

 

[Kat]

They're minute things, yes. The government doesn't exist to force society to babysit others. Charities and churches exist, which can CHOOSE to take care of things like that. If someone messes up, especially in situations like the one being discussed, nobody else should be obligated to pay for that, it's a case of personal choice and personal responsibility. Eliminating the consequences of someone's actions causes self-entitlement and poor decision-making.

Why don't you give me an example instead of just claiming it?

Being president doesn't make him intelligent by default.

Attributing Steve Jobs' success solely to Government Education is a massive leap.

Ronald Reagan didn't have to be a genius to understand how the economy works, Democrats just tend to be below average in intelligence.

Government education isn't "effective" solely because they're obligated to take everyone. The fact is that Private Education has incentive to take everyone, because there's a demand for education, and the more people they take, the more money they make. That same incentive would cause them to WANT to set up their schools in low income areas, and provide cheap education. Also unlike Government education, there would be incentive to make it quality education, because competition would demand it. The government has no incentive to provide quality education because regardless of how many people attend, or how well-educated the people attending are, the government still makes money from every tax-payer.

Public schools offer transportation because it's not on their dime, it's on every tax-payer.

Neither of my parents have quit work to teach me. Your opinion of homeschooling is just full of assumptions. Parents don't have to be well-educated, either, because the facts come from the books and various sources of information used in the schooling. When the parents are involved, they may offer bits of information, but it's not as though they sit you down and teach you from their memory.

Maybe I am elitist, or maybe I just think that people should take responsibility for their life choices. For example, the decisions that lead them to being poor and keep them there, or their decision to sleep with someone and by extension have a child that they aren't ready for. Maybe the decision not to go to college. I believe that when a person makes a decision, they should take full responsibility for it, and all things that come as a result, and deal with it themselves. Life doesn't take care of you, and nobody should expect it to.



Because it's not the responsibility of taxpayers to cover for sluts? If they make the mistake, it's their problem, as it should be. If the taxpayers are providing birth control, it's not teaching any form of responsibility, it's further enabling sluts, and encouraging making the wrong decision, it's absolutely counterproductive. Your argument is absolutely backwards.

Saying that they should take responsibility should they choose to make the obvious wrong decision isn't judging them. Sure, I'm judging them, but that's not HOW I'm doing so.

You're still missing the point, it SHOULDN'T have an impact on society, it's not society's mistake, nor society's problem, we are not a collective, that one single person makes a mistake, it's their problem, they can clean it up themselves. They shouldn't have made such a costly mistake in the first place.

Abortion shouldn't be legal in the first place, so it shouldn't be impacting society. We can thank the godless, moral-less Liberals for that.

it's further enabling sluts


You really shouldn't say that..

Hmm, you're right, it's a dirty word. what if I said "Further enabling immoral women"? Would that make it better? It's the same fact, regardless.

I have a question pumpkin.. What do you consider a slut what's your definition?

I am 51 I slept with like 10 or 12 women in my life..

I was always a faithful guy.. My first wife who died slept around after I left when I was being an Asshat to her.. We got back together again for a little bit and I realize know I treated her like shit.. I didn't abuse her with violence.. But I abused her with words..

So was she a slut? . I used to think that way..

I forgave her.. I realized I was being an asshole and I don't blame her for doing it.

.

Oh, but does my personal harsh moral standards really mean anything to you? I'm just a bitter, hateful, judgmental child. I'll save you spare you the trouble of thinking of a way to 'correct' my perception.

What pumpkin? Your not a child you have knowledge and some wisdom.. Trust me I already told you you're going to be very good when you grow up.. But I think you're leaning to much right at 15... I am not telling you and have sex or do drugs.. But go out and have fun.. Date guys your age go to a movie.... Have fun..

She does have fun, and she does what she likes to do. She just turned 15, and doesn't need to be dating, especially if she does't want to.