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

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. Originally Posted by TPJR

Perhaps you didn’t read the newspapers. Odumbocare is a mandate that has an impact on every facet of American society. There’s no “choice” when the costs is passed on in the cost of water, food, gas & heating, electricity, etc., etc., etc. Those are not “elective” expenses or costs, yet every company or business that provides those services will be forced to pass this tax on to the consumer.

Whether the government mandates employers to cover the cost or not, everyone is still going to pay for other people's choices. The only question is how much.

Whether the government mandates employers to cover the cost or not, everyone is still going to pay for other people's choices. The only question is how much. Originally Posted by TPJR

So your most intelligent answer is "just because"!?!

The Federal government and several state governments mandate motorcycle helmets, or motorcyclists are subject to fines and penalties. Why not mandate responsible sex and require participants to purchase their own Romper Room supplies rather than hold the community at large responsible?

The pill, the condom and the little blue pill should be purchased by those who use them. Sex is an elective activity, and abstinence is always a viable choice.

Why not mandate responsible sex and require participants to purchase their own Romper Room supplies rather than hold the community at large responsible?

The pill, the condom and the little blue pill should be purchased by those who use them. Sex is an elective activity, and abstinence is always a viable choice. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ideally people should, but the problem is that many people can't or don't, and we all end up paying for it indirectly anyway. And when it comes to birth control pills, sometimes prescription birth control would be more suitable for either contraception, or other medical conditions like endometriosis.

Ideally people should, but the problem is that many people can't or don't, and we all end up paying for it indirectly anyway. And when it comes to birth control pills, sometimes prescription birth control would be more suitable for either contraception, or other medical conditions like endometriosis. Originally Posted by TPJR

The argument that the government has the power to coerce every taxpayer in this country to finance the irresponsible acts of a few but then maintain that the government is powerless to coerce those few to act responsibly is not logical!?!

Child services often becomes involved in cases where parents act and behave irresponsibly. When doing so, child services often removes children from those parents and makes them wards of the state. Why wait? If the parents conceive irresponsibly, let child services step in at birth and take the child out of that reckless and irresponsible environment and put the child up for adoption. Adopting parents are much more willing to adopt an infant rather than a ten or twelve year old who is psychologically messed up by irresponsible, miscreant parents, and the adopting parents can be charge for most if not the entire cost of such services. Once the state has provided for the security of the child(ren), neuter the miscreants parents like they do rapists! Word will get around.

And abstinence remains a viable option: it doesn't cost a cent.

As you pointed out there are sometimes other extenuating circumstances, but those are the exceptions and not the rule. Let those cases be evaluated on a case by case, and don't mandate a universal for the exceptions.

We're not paying for people to have sex. We're paying for people not to have expensive babies that we're going to have to pay for in the future. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

If were were SERIOUS about paying for people not to have expensive babies, we would be requiring them to get something like Mirena, which is implanted once, remains active for five years, and does not require any further action by the implantee, rather than The Pill, which requires the patient to take her pill EVERY DAY WITHOUT FAIL. There is far too much history out there of females "forgetting" or deliberately failing to take The Pill, because they WANT to get pregnant.

If we were SERIOUS about this, we would further REFUSE to pay for removal of the Mirena implant for any but real medical reasons. "I just got married and we want to get pregnant" WOULD NOT QUALIFY: The correct government answer would be "Wait a few years. The implant will go inert, and can then be removed. If you're still married then, and you both still want to get pregnant, you have the option NOT to replace it."

And abstinence remains a viable option: it doesn't cost a cent.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And therein lies your problem from my POV IB, you think that this is a viable option contrary to decades of evidence.

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

What are you talking about...we are talking mostly about dispensing birth control free (the pill, condoms) ...which is way cheaper than aborting idiots like you later on in life ...after you have used crack and murdered law-abiding citizen and raped and plundered. Then we have to use Death Penalty to abort your dumbass.

Everything has to be looked at from an economic perspective...if you were a true conservative you'd know that simple fact but you're not, you're a neocon in a Tea Pot Costume.

You've been on the government tit your whole life and yet you bitch about some poor family getting free birth control.

And abstinence remains a viable option: it doesn't cost a cent. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Do you know what "viable" means?

"able to be successfully accomplished or put into practice".....

Do you believe in God? Or at least some supreme being?

If you do, then you now that God made sex feel good for a reason.

If you do, then you know that God made sex feel good for a reason. Originally Posted by LexusLover

So we wouldn't put a bounty on women?

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...udy-finds?lite

When more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years, abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate, according to a new report by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis researchers.
From 2008 to 2010, annual abortion rates among participants in the Contraceptive Choice Project -- dubbed CHOICE -- ranged from 4.4 abortions per 1,000 women to 7.5 abortions per 1,000. That’s far less than the 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women nationwide reported in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available.

Among teen girls ages 15 to 19 who participated in the study, the annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 girls, far below the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls the same age.

So we wouldn't put a bounty on women? Originally Posted by WTF

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific ...

"..... then you know that God made sex with a female feel good for a reason.

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific ...

"..... then you know that God made sex with a female feel good for a reason. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Regarding the motorcycle helmet analogy, here's another similar one in place today: seat belts and airbags in cars. That's a safety feature that's mandated by the government that I'm certain part of the cost is passed onto the taxpayer, but in today's day and age there's no argument that those are features that cars should definitely have.

Fundamentally, we all subsidize many items that we may or may not use simply because it's better for society as a whole if we do so.

As others have pointed out, contraceptives also have other medical uses other than just preventing pregnancy (regulating the menstral cycle, etc.). Having insurance cover it is just like having it cover any other of medical non-life threatening conditions (albuterol for asthma, prescription eyeglasses, dental visits).

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...udy-finds?lite

When more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years, abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate, according to a new report by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis researchers.
From 2008 to 2010, annual abortion rates among participants in the Contraceptive Choice Project -- dubbed CHOICE -- ranged from 4.4 abortions per 1,000 women to 7.5 abortions per 1,000. That’s far less than the 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women nationwide reported in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available.

Among teen girls ages 15 to 19 who participated in the study, the annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 girls, far below the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls the same age. Originally Posted by WTF

Let me repeat this...

I haven't posted the facts on the costs of government related costs on payments on child birth and costs of unwanted preggo's!