JohnWC
Veteran Expediter
Yep but what about those of us who elected to have one and acted right and prevented from having any more why should I have to pay for someone else's childern or birth control
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
The same reason you pay taxes: it benefits the whole, which includes you.
I also had exactly as many children as I wanted & could comfortably support, but if others don't [or can't] limit their reproduction in the same way, we will pay for it later, and it will be a lot more expensive, then.
Contraceptives are much less expensive [to society] than raising children in poverty, even without the drugs, crime, and prison that is too often the result.
The 'hands off' policy has nothing to do with who pays for what, it's about who decides what medical care women can get. That should not be legislators with an ideology/religious axe to grind.
I wonder if you'd say that if you were younger, and planning to start a family, [later] and your insurance was all you had?
It absolutely does no matter how much you want to deny it. Women should not pay for viagra just the same.
Yes I would. When our daughter was born we prepaid at the hospital because we wanted to go to a specific one. Because of prepayments we got a discount.
What? You mean you planned? Planned? Don't be ridiculous. That smacks of responsibility. We just can't have that sort of thing.
This entire post is a picture perfect example of the liberal socialist's world view, but this first sentence sums it up. Redistribution of wealth from the responsible citizens who support themselves to those who don't.
This statement is beyond ridiculous. Cats and dogs can't and don't limit their reproduction when left to their natural instincts. On the other hand, humans CAN limit their reproduction if they choose to do so. Employed American citizens should not be responsible for supporting the able-bodied people who won't support themselves. Socialism doesn't work - never has, never will.
That will upset the whole apple cart with that kind of suggestion.
What it smacks of is having the funds to take advantage of such opportunities. Equating the lack of funds with irresponsibility is, well, irresponsible.
Well, duh!
Stating an obvious, glaring fact, is irresponsible? No, sorry. Doing something which you cannot afford to do and expecting someone else to be responsible for your actions is the epitome and the embodiment of, not to mention the zenith of, irresponsibility. It is the exact opposite of responsible.
So not having funds and expecting someone else to pay the bill is...responsible
I see Turtle beat me to it but used more words lol.
This my friends is the kind of totally screwed up thinking we are dealing with today! I sometimes wonder if statements like these are made before using the thought process or if said process just 100% is beyond some people's reach! SMH
JohnWC
Veteran Expediter
So that meens I pay for someone else Humm I've been paying ss and taxes since I was 14 hum
You know your reply kind of pissed me off. What it really was is two people making something happen because that's what they wanted. I worked two jobs the entire time and my ex worked full time at another. None great paying jobs by any means and actually more like the type of pay you would whine and moan about as being the wealthy owner not paying employees enough. It wasn't because "funds were available" it was because we worked hard and scrimped to make it happen! I'm gonna stop here before I say what I really think and get a nice little pm from admin.
One of the most objectionable talking points of today's liberals is that people shouldn't have to live within their means, and that the wage earners of our society are obligated to provide these non-productive parasites with a comfortable lifestyle which includes the expense of raising the children they never should have had to begin with. Inexpensive contraception is readily available from quite a few different sources.
We're talking about contraception, here, and whether insurance should require everyone to pay for the coverage that only women of childbearing age will use. But the cost of insurance isn't [and can't be] based on 'pay for what you use', because we have no way of knowing who will need what. We know that some people will require more [expensive] care because their lifestyle choices lead to obesity, diabetes, heart and blood pressure problems, but do those people have to pay higher premiums?
You can make a case for not paying for contraceptives because you [being male] will never need any, but that is 'penny wise & pound foolish'. The women who can't pay for their own contraceptives [and something I recently learned is that the more effective kinds are not the ones handed out at "free clinics"] are precisely the women who should be using them. The babies they don't want & can't afford will end up costing taxpayers [including me, thank you very much] a whole lot more later. Yet those women are thrown under the bus at every opportunity: from a lack of decent sex education to a lack of affordable and accessible contraception, then vilified for getting pregnant [as if they did it alone].
It's real easy to lecture about being responsible, and expecting other people to cover the costs, when the subject is women having sex, but how about the men who overindulge in red meat and alcohol for decades, then expect insurance to pay for their needs?
I can understand the anger, but feel it should be directed at the fact that it took 3 full time jobs to accomplish the most basic of family priorities.
It was because the funds were available - [and I didn't mean to imply that they just dropped in your lap] that you could take care of your family. What it took to make them available is what makes me angry, because people shouldn't need 2 jobs to live a decent life.
One of the most objectionable "talking points" of today's conservatives is describing people as "non productive parasites". I bet you call yourself a Christian, too.
Another is describing a meager subsistence as "a comfortable lifestyle" - that's pure [and ugly] ignorance talking.
Yet another is claiming that inexpensive contraception is readily available to anyone & everyone. Even if that were true [which it isn't] inexpensive contraceptives are also ineffective, comparatively speaking. If cheap is all you can afford, unintended pregnancy is a good bet.