Why Does the Government Think We Should Pay For Others to Have Sex?

Exactly! Thank you for seeing through COG's spin. No one is being paid to have sex. They are going to do that anyway. Paying for contraception eliminates the consequences of the sex. And it is cheaper for society in the long run. Think how much money society can save not having to pay for the education and probable eventual incarceration of at least some or all of Antonio Cromartie's dozen illegitimate children.


As a general proposition, you are paying for contraception of ALL people, not just the irresponsible.

More importantly, you're paying for the irresponsible behavior of other people no matter what. If they have the kids, you pay for the medical bills, the education, and frequently, the incarceration of the kids.

And you are NEVER going to get rid of the state safety net. I don't like entitlement programs any more than you do, but they are a FACT of life. The average person wants it. Ayn Rand LOST. Get over it.

Social Security is here to stay.

Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare - whatever you want to call it - is here to stay.

So the only intelligent course to follow is to minimize the costs of those programs.

And contraceptives are clearly cheaper than the social costs of unwanted children.

In the area of healthcare, you would never say that the government should pay the cost of hospitalization to treat people with flu, rubella, polio, small pox, and the like, but should NOT pay the costs of vaccines thatprevent those ailments from occurring in the first place.

Think of birth control pills as vaccines for preventing Antonio Cromartie's baby mamas from getting pregnant. That should bring the issues into focus.
Originally Posted by ExNYer

To the both of you -- to use the psychological term -- "enablers". You are always offering excuses for personal irresponsibility and thus you enable a dysfunctional society. Procreative consensual sex is NOT a required or accidental activity. Consensual sex is a matter of CHOICE for those who choose to engage; whereas, old age, debilitating diseases and injuries, etc., are not inevitable or accidental and are usually beyond the realm of "free choice".

The pill and contraceptives are not that expensive, and the individuals involved should pay their own way when they want to play. If they -- with joint incomes -- cannot afford such contraceptives, then they cannot afford a child or even the possibility of an accidental child. At that point their responsible decision should be to abstain It's called personal, individual responsibility. Hold such no-accounts responsible for their own irresponsibility, and others will get the message. Until then, you get more of the same. Get over it!!!!

when I pay school taxes, I'm paying for yhe irresponsible behavior of folks thst want others to bare the cost of educating their kids...why no gripe about that? Originally Posted by WTF

I bitch about that all the time. Just finished paying for that shit the other day, pisses me the fuck off. Fucking MUD taxes REALLY pisses me off. Better than my brother though, he lives right on the beach in NJ, had to pay 35k, in property taxes.

For those of you confused by me posting only part of the article, if you look very closely, you will find a link to the entire article beneath the quoted portion.

Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

To the both of you -- to use the psychological term -- "enablers". You are always offering excuses for personal irresponsibility and thus you enable a dysfunctional society. No, I don't always offer excuses for personal irresponsibility. I'm not even doing that here. Find the "excuse" I offered for unwanted pregnancies. I didn't. But I am a realist about what we are up against. And I want to do what I can to minimize the amount of money the IRS takes out of my pocket. Since eliminating the safety net is NOT going to happen, Im choosing Door No. 2 - avoid the pregnancies in the first place.

Procreative consensual sex is NOT a required or accidental activity. True, but irrelevant. Consensual sex is a matter of CHOICE for those who choose to engage; whereas, old age, debilitating diseases and injuries, etc., are not inevitable or accidental and are usually beyond the realm of "free choice". True, but irrelevant.

The pill and contraceptives are not that expensive, and the individuals involved should pay their own way when they want to play. True, but irrelevant. They should also not commit murder, but they do, don't they?. If they -- with joint incomes -- cannot afford such contraceptives, then they cannot afford a child or even the possibility of an accidental child. At that point their responsible decision should be to abstain It's called personal, individual responsibility. True, but irrelevant. That's what they SHOULD do. But facts - actual history - tells us they do not and will not. Sex is a fundamental, primal, human urge. Teenagers have ZERO control over it and older adults have only moderate control.

Hold such no-accounts responsible for their own irresponsibility, and others will get the message. Until then, you get more of the same.Actually, such no-accounts were held responsible for their irresponsibility for centuries. And STILL they got pregnant. Now that we have subsidized healthcare, what makes you think they will become more responsible? And, in reality, the people that were really held responsible were the unwanted children. They are often abused or neglected or abandoned. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Get over it!!! Get over what? I don't have to get over anything. I agree with the program. You, on the other hand, have a problem. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But thank you for the sermon, Reverend.

Actually, such no-accounts were held responsible for their irresponsibility for centuries. Try again. The fear of dearth and social ostracism kept a lid on such wanton and lascivious activities on a wide-spread basis. Ideally, responsible parents wouldn't let their daughters court -- let alone marry -- a shiftless miscreant who couldn't financially take care of their daughter. That's why there were arranged marriages. This nonsense of dependent teenagers begetting children with other dependent teenagers was unheard of 100 years ago. For many centuries, men wouldn't marry until they were in their mid to late twenties -- after they had established themselves financially. Women were married at a much younger age, but there was also a high mortality rate among women during child birth and among pre-teen children. There were exceptions, and they were more often than not ostracized by society, see Hawthorne's A Scarlet Letter. There were also "professionals"; it seems they have always been in society. But these were the exceptions, and they constituted a minor segment of society, unlike today where a substantial number of single parent families are being subsidized, more or less anonymously -- beyond public-societal reproach, by the state. And STILL they got pregnant. Now that we have subsidized healthcare, what makes you think they will become more responsible? That's the point: it won't!

But thank you for the sermon, Reverend. Originally Posted by ExNYer

.

IB...it is a money saving program. That is why exNYer is for it and why I am for it. It is the reality.

This isn't a hundred years ago!

Sorry Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This is the first time I have agreed with you since your "Yeah. I lied." post.

Yes, you are sorry! Next time you might want to add cocksucker to the end of it!

How are we enabling irresponsible behavior?

Using contraception is something responsible people do. This is behavior we want to reinforce and so I have no problems with making it more affordable for everyone who wants to get it (on top of the money saved by not having to pay for unplanned pregnancies).

Saying "let's not pay for anything and people won't have sex" simply isn't reality.

Honestly, part of the problem is very likely because of the increased freedom we have. As IBH points out, in the old days, society was so restrictive that it is very likely that a smaller percentage of children were born to single parent families. Of course, that society had its own slew of problems - regular violence towards your wife & kids, marrying only to have sex which leads to adultery, substance abuse, etc. Today's society is more free for everyone and we're a happier culture for it.

Finally, the good ole' days sucked. No internet, running water, or electricity? Roving bands of religious fanatics getting in my business? Sounds like another part of the world that has been getting a lot of media attention these past few decades? Fuck that noise.

What's the problem. We can buy 10 million rubberbands from China, cheap.

Wow! I mean how eye opening. Black babies are disproportionly aborted and WTF approves of this. It is all economics to him instead of a holocaust. That would explain the lack of kick back against the crack epidemic, the destruction of the black families, the destruction of black men, and abortion. It is, as WTF said, all about economics. I guess the book Freakonomics was correct. The left is trying to reduce or eliminate the surplus black population by abortion.

I also notice that Eva used the code word for black people. Why aren't the both of you in the Klan? Then again, maybe you are...

Wow! I mean how eye opening. Black babies are disproportionly aborted and WTF approves of this. It is all economics to him instead of a holocaust. That would explain the lack of kick back against the crack epidemic, the destruction of the black families, the destruction of black men, and abortion. It is, as WTF said, all about economics. I guess the book Freakonomics was correct. The left is trying to reduce or eliminate the surplus black population by abortion.

I also notice that Eva used the code word for black people. Why aren't the both of you in the Klan? Then again, maybe you are... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

IB...it is a money saving program. That is why exNYer is for it and why I am for it. It is the reality.

This isn't a hundred years ago! Originally Posted by WTF

How are we enabling irresponsible behavior?

Using contraception is something responsible people do. This is behavior we want to reinforce and so I have no problems with making it more affordable for everyone who wants to get it (on top of the money saved by not having to pay for unplanned pregnancies).

Saying "let's not pay for anything and people won't have sex" simply isn't reality.

Honestly, part of the problem is very likely because of the increased freedom we have. As IBH points out, in the old days, society was so restrictive that it is very likely that a smaller percentage of children were born to single parent families. Of course, that society had its own slew of problems - regular violence towards your wife & kids, marrying only to have sex which leads to adultery, substance abuse, etc. Today's society is more free for everyone and we're a happier culture for it.

Finally, the good ole' days sucked. No internet, running water, or electricity? Roving bands of religious fanatics getting in my business? Sounds like another part of the world that has been getting a lot of media attention these past few decades? Fuck that noise. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

"Fuck that noise," is correct. Why must the taxpayer "cover" their habit? You don't propose to have tax payers buy motorcycle helmets for motorcyclists, yet many think wearing a helmet is the "responsible" thing to do. Why? In fact, many states have made it a criminal offense not to wear a helmet -- so much for people "getting into your business" (and let's not even begin to talk about gun control).

Neither of you have explained why individuals engaging in this elective activity cannot pay for condoms themselves. Condoms are relatively inexpensive: Okamoto Crown Condoms, Super Thin Condom are just 17¢ each -- less than a cigarette. See @ http://www.amazon.com/Okamoto-Condom...0118114&sr=1-1

I'm trying to figure out how the government is forcing people to pay for contraception. The government is arguing that employer supplied insurance, which employees are paying for, should cover contraception. I don't know where people are getting this idea that everyone is forced to cover other people's contraception. Also, birth control is not only used for contraception. Many women use it to relieve menstrual cramps or endometriosis.

I'm trying to figure out how the government is forcing people to pay for contraception. The government is arguing that employer supplied insurance, which employees are paying for, should cover contraception. I don't know where people are getting this idea that everyone is forced to cover other people's contraception. Also, birth control is not only used for contraception. Many women use it to relieve menstrual cramps or endometriosis. Originally Posted by TPJR

Do you actually believe any business is going to "eat" these increased costs without passing them on, in some manner, to the consumer? And it's already an established fact that the government -- the American tax payer -- is subsidizing abortions and contraceptives through PPH.

Do you actually believe any business is going to "eat" these increased costs without passing them on, in some manner, to the consumer? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So you agree with me that the government is not forcing people to pay for contraception? If a business decides to pass on the cost to consumers, that's their choice. Nobody is making them do it, and the fact that businesses will pass off costs of business to consumers, doesn't mean that a government regulation is wrong.