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

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by essence

Small price to pay IFF it reduces teen pregnancy (or pregnancy for anybody who can't afford a baby).

You guys on the left are real fiscal hawks when it comes to abortion. Just imagine how much money we've saved by aborting FIFTY FIVE MILLION BABIES since Roe v Wade.

Next comes euthanizing the old people with Obama's death panel. That should be a real cash cow. We'll have a surplus pretty soon. Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger to promote eugenics by killing off minority groups. It's been a very effective tool; most black pregancies now end in abortion. SEVENTEEN MILLION black babies have been killed since Roe v Wade.

Irish playright, George Bernard Shaw was a devout socialist who believed that those who couldn't contribute to society should be exterminated; he called them "useless eaters." He was a big fan of Adolph Hitler. You liberals certainly are compassionate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRGLEpzcWh0

[CuteOldGuy]

I hope the libs watch that video, Joe. But they won't. Very eye-opening.

[jbravo_123]

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I hope the libs watch that video, Joe. But they won't. Very eye-opening.

George Bernard Shaw was a member of the Fabian Society, a highly influencial socialist organization founded in the late nineteenth century. The Fabian Society's logo is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a perfect metaphor for socialism.

Possibly the worst thing about socialism is it's inefficiency. Socialist economies don't produce enough goods and services to allow for a quality standard of living.

Because socialist economies are inefficient, sooner or later, they spiral downward into a kind of triage situation. Rationing healthcare becomes inevitable. After all, when there's not enough to go around, why waste hundreds of thousands on grandma to buy a few extra months.

By the same principle, why waste a fortune on a sickly babies that will probably never have a "productive life." Legalized infanticide is obviously where we're headed. I'm sure the left will call it a woman's right to choose and claim it's protected by the so called right to privacy.

http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-...f-infanticide/

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

I believe I speak for every rational person in the Sandbox, when I say, what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"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).
Bad comparison.Unwanted pregnancies are not like ANY other social ill. None of the others create another unwanted human being that will be a ward of the state for 18 years. Most importantly, the kid is harmed, too.
If a biker doesn't war a helmet, he only fucks himself up. He doesn't create another human that will also cost us money and may become a criminal.

Neither of you have explained why individuals engaging in this elective activity cannot pay for condoms themselves. Condoms are relatively inexpensive.

I don't have to explain it because I don't advocate that. I also don't think that the health care plans are paying for them. The discussion relates to birth control pills, IUDs, abortion pills, etc. Thinks you need a doctor for. You don't need healthcare to pay for condoms. Schools give them away free. I'm in favor of that.

Moreover, since condoms ARE so cheap, can you not see the simply logic in giving them away for free?

It costs the government practically nothing and it saves a HUGE amount of money down the road by avoiding OB/GYN costs, free public schooling, food stamps, and too often, incarceration.

Assuming you are paying for healthcare costs, prisons, and schools, why do you NOT want to minimize those costs? That is the real question.

Your arguments are an excellent example of making the perfect the enemy of the good. You imagine a perfect world in which everyone is forced to act responsibily by NOT being bailed out by government all the time. And so you stand on absolutist principles and demand that not a penny be spent on birth control. As a result, we instead spend BILLIONS on jails, drug rehab, maternity care, public schools.

Well, we can't afford your absolutist principles We need to exercise common sense and distinguish between a 17 year old who is having sex and a 65 year old that spent his life not working particularly hard and not saving at all.

I'm not willing to bail out the older guy by giving in to bleeding heart demands for greater social security spending. Let him serve as a bad example to other.

I AM willing to put the 17 year old on the pill. Because if I do not, she and her illegitimate offspring will cost me a LOT more money in the long run.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

You guys on the left are real fiscal hawks when it comes to abortion. Just imagine how much money we've saved by aborting FIFTY FIVE MILLION BABIES since Roe v Wade.

Next comes euthanizing the old people with Obama's death panel. That should be a real cash cow. We'll have a surplus pretty soon. Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger to promote eugenics by killing off minority groups. It's been a very effective tool; most black pregancies now end in abortion. SEVENTEEN MILLION black babies have been killed since Roe v Wade.

Irish playright, George Bernard Shaw was a devout socialist who believed that those who couldn't contribute to society should be exterminated; he called them "useless eaters." He was a big fan of Adolph Hitler. You liberals certainly are compassionate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRGLEpzcWh0

We are talking about condoms and birth control....something that leads to less abortions!


You silly Tea Wacks are even aganist that!btw, who gives a shit about Shaw.

As for Death Panels...the reality is that folks die, it is crazy for a nation with money troubles to be throwing money at a person who will live on average three more months.

If we had reasoned discussions on this matter, I think even old folks would see the logic, their family damn sure sees it when it is their money being spent on granny and not the governments. Let them mortage their house and put off sending their children to college to pay for granny getting another three months.

You want to have a reasoned debate , bring it on. You want to act like Sara Palin, just turn around and quit while you're behind.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I hope the libs watch that video, Joe. But they won't. Very eye-opening.

Only if your eyes are always closed Chicken Little, waiting for the sky to fall on your bald empty head.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Do you know what "viable" means?

vi-a-ble [vahy-uh-buhl] adjective
5. practicable; workable: a viable alternative.

Originally Posted by WTF

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

The "decades" to which you refer are those decades that followed the advent of Johnson's "Great Society" social programs. Only because society began pandering to the sexually irresponsible in the 60s by removing the social stigma historically associated with such irresponsibility and enabling irresponsible individuals to anonymously – anonymity achieved through a vast impersonal government bureaucracy – foist onto the public at large the costs resulting from sexual irresponsible behavior.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Bad comparison. There’s no “comparing” about it: government coercion is government coercion.

Unwanted kids are not like ANY other social harm. None of the others create another human being that will be a ward of the state for 18 years. Most importantly, the kid is harmed, too. A solution was already proffered: at birth, put the child up for adoption to responsible parents.

I don't have to explain it because I don't advocate that. I also don'tthink that the health care plans are paying for them. The discussion relates to birth control pills, IUDs, abortion pills, etc. Thinks you need a doctor for. You don't need healthcare to pay for condoms. Schools give them away free. These items are not “free”! The cost is being foisted onto others.

Moreover, since condoms ARE so cheap, can you not see the simply logic in giving them away for free? Because they are not “free”; the cost is being foisted onto others!

It costs the government practically nothing and it saves a HUGE amount of money down the road by avoiding OB/GYN costs, free public schooling, food stamps, and too often, incarceration. “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon, you're talking real money!”

Assuming you are paying for healthcare costs, prisons, and schools, why do you NOT want to minimize those costs? That is the real question. For the same reason you don’t want to pay for a motorcyclist’s helmet – it’s an unfair imposition on society as a whole for an elective activity for an irresponsible few. Society has no problem locking up irresponsible individuals such as alcoholics and drug addicts, but libertards continue to expand “enabling” measures for the sexually irresponsible. Abstinence continues to be a viable choice.

Your arguments are an excellent example of making the perfect the enemy of the good. You imagine a perfect world inwhich everyone is forced to act responsibily by NOT being bailed out by government all the time. And so you stand on absolutist principles and demand that not a penny be spent on birth control. As a result, we instead spend BILLIONS on jails, drug rehab, maternity care, public schools. That is the byproduct of a society that is pandering to its irresponsible wherein individuals are not held accountable for their own actions. Just an FYI, an effective education is an investment, not an expense.

Well, we can't afford your absolutist principles We need to exercise common sense and distinguish between a 17 year old who is having sex and a 65 year old that spent his life not working particularly hard and not saving at all.

I'm not willing to bail out the older guy by giving in to bleeding heart demands for greater social security spending. Let him serve as a bad example to other.

I AM willing to put the 17 year old on the pill. Because if I do not, she and her illegitimate offspring will cost me a LOT more money in the long run. The pill cost approximately $16 per month – the cost of a movie with popcorn. If the individual cannot afford that, that individual cannot afford a child. The recourse then is abstinence, and abstinence always remains a valid choice. Engaging in sex is an elective activity, not required.

.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The "decades" to which you refer are those decades that followed the advent of Johnson's "Great Society" social programs. Only because society began pandering to the sexually irresponsible in the 60s by removing the social stigma historically associated with such irresponsibility and enabling irresponsible individuals to anonymously – anonymity achieved through a vast impersonal government bureaucracy – foist onto the public at large the costs resulting from sexual irresponsible behavior.


.

But that is today's reality IB.

While I may agree with your analysis, that does not change the reality.

You are wanting to ride a horse down the freeway just because that is how they used to get to work. That reality is no more!

Like it or not, we have this fuc'd up society and giving out free birth control is the most practical way to prevent more abortions and unwanted preggo's!

You are mixing up two different points , reality and utopia.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by WTF

We are talking about condoms and birth control....something that leads to less abortions!


You silly Tea Wacks are even aganist that!btw, who gives a shit about Shaw.

As for Death Panels...the reality is that folks die, it is crazy for a nation with money troubles to be throwing money at a person who will live on average three more months.

If we had reasoned discussions on this matter, I think even old folks would see the logic, their family damn sure sees it when it is their money being spent on granny and not the governments. Let them mortage their house and put off sending their children to college to pay for granny getting another three months.

You want to have a reasoned debate , bring it on. You want to act like Sara Palin, just turn around and quit while you're behind.

We're also talking about so called abortifacients, also known as the morning after pill. Abortifacients don't prevent conception, they end it.

Thanks for confirming my point that socialized medicine always rations healthcare. I don't want the government making life and death decisions about who gets healthcare and who doesn't; they've got too much power already.

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun1.abortifacient - a drug (or other chemical agent) that causes abortion aborticide, abortion-inducing drug
abortion pill, mifepristone, RU 486 - an abortion-inducing drug (trade name RU_486) developed in France; when taken during the first five weeks of pregnancy it blocks the action of progesterone so that the uterus sloughs off the embryo

drug - a substance that is used as a medicine or narcotic
Adj.1.abortifacient - causing abortion causative - producing an effect; "poverty as a causative factor in crime"

[jbravo_123]

Sexual freedom (and freedom in general) is something we like to have, but it doesn't come without its own set of issues.

Also, it's not like young people weren't exploring and having sex in the old days either not even mentioning the general views of society (even today) of how men are viewed vs how women are viewed.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

.

Thanks for confirming my point that socialized medicine always rations healthcare. I don't want the government making life and death decisions about who gets healthcare and who doesn't; they've got too much power already.

"

Then PAY for better insurance than Medicare provides. Quite simple really. Do not ask others to pay for your old age.

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by WTF

Then PAY for better insurance than Medicare provides. Quite simple really. Do not ask others to pay for your old age.

Yeah really - people don't have a right to unlimited amounts of well... anything really. You don't have the right to fuck things up for everyone else due to your selfishness.