MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) http://www.welfareinfo.org/payments/ man thats some great reward! didnt know they were living a life of luxury... So the only reason a child born to an irresponsible woman will die is because the woman is poor? No other reason? No wonder you're only answer is "give more money from someone else." the blame is clear here. the woman is irresponsible, here is the question? will you sterlilize her, lol, or will you provide state services for those children? hopefully, you dont say let the kids starve... ( remember) most of the time we are dealing with a family that is simply poor and has a few kids and needs food stamps, etc to stay healthy... this can be avoided with state provided birth control. are you against that? Edited August 31, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 so what happens to the child? this applies to people who dont want poor people to have access to birth control from the state... but either way, you cant force birth control or sterlize people, i think....lol so yeah, what happens to the child? dont worry about disease or basic science, that will complicate things for u... You stop rewarding people for having children you reduce the chances that the child will even be born you nitwit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 this can be avoided with state provided birth control. are you against that? Anyone who thinks that irresponsible women having babies they can't care for can be avoided with free birth control needs to step away from the computer and go for a walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 and this always works? what if a woman keeps having kids for whatever reason? shes an !@#$? what if her husband leaves? loses his job/her job, goes to jail, gets sick, etc etc... god forbid, even if a poor couple cant really afford a couple kids, what if they want kids regardless? again, should the state provide birth control for poor people to help remedy some of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 and this always works? what if a woman keeps having kids for whatever reason? shes an !@#$? what if her husband leaves? loses his job/her job, goes to jail, gets sick, etc etc... god forbid, even if a poor couple cant really afford a couple kids, what if they want kids regardless? again, should the state provide birth control for poor people to help remedy some of this? You see, part of your problem is you're drilling this like a stereotypical progressive. You want to legislate based on "what if" to the extent that we now have to help the woman who just lost her husband, her job, her health and is on her way to jail. The only thing missing is the woman mumbling "It's only a flesh wound." And I can't speak for whatever state you live in, but come to California, say you're poor, and get all the free birth control you want. It's getting people to use it that can not be legislated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) Anyone who thinks that irresponsible women having babies they can't care for can be avoided with free birth control needs to step away from the computer and go for a walk. did you read earlier that the issue was separate... i said for normal situations, its seems state provided birth control would remedy many unwanted pregnancies for poor people for w/e reason... the other issue which had nothing to do with birth control was should the state still help children who have an irresponsible parent... jim said not giving them the reward would deter them from having more kids, obviosuly this is not always true, probably most times its not, so the question remains, if a poor couple have kids and need assistance, should the state provide that? and even if its a welfare queen, and state rewards stop, will she stop? she still gets some child support, right? You see, part of your problem is you're drilling this like a stereotypical progressive. You want to legislate based on " "what if" o the extent that we now have to help the woman who just lost her husband, her job, her health and is on her way to jail. The only thing missing is the woman mumbling "It's only a flesh wound." And I can't speak for whatever state you live in, but come to California, say you're poor, and get all the free birth control you want. It's getting people to use it that can not be legislated. its called reality, if poor people dont have access to bc, then the chances go up that they will have an unwanted pregnancy.... no? asking people to not have sex is like asking people to not exercise or even eat food. its called human bonding/physical needs...lol you dont live in reality if you deny this. and the sad thing is, those against state provided bc will complain about welfare and the burden it has on the state... the welfare queen is a whole other can of worms, but either way, which has nothing to do with bc but state assistance to those kids regardless... Edited August 31, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I'd stop payments for having children after a decade, so that no current children are harmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 No welfare, no birth control, no free health services, no housing assistance. Nothing. The options should be simple and easily understood: -provide for yourself and your family like a grownup -join the military -seek help from charities and churches -die of starvation and exposure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 here is the question? will you sterlilize her, lol, or will you provide state services for those children? hopefully, you dont say let the kids starve... I say, let her feed her own kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 No welfare, no birth control, no free health services, no housing assistance. Nothing. The options should be simple and easily understood: -provide for yourself and your family like a grownup -join the military -seek help from charities and churches -die of starvation and exposure a 3 yr old can work? what if the mom is single? if poor people dont have access to contraceptives, obviously this increases the rate for unwanted pregnancy, right? so wouldnt it be cheaper and less of a burden on the state to provide bc for poor people? No welfare, no birth control, no free health services, no housing assistance. Nothing. The options should be simple and easily understood: -provide for yourself and your family like a grownup -join the military -seek help from charities and churches -die of starvation and exposure disabled, old, sick, children, market vulnerability, all keep you from being personally responsible. you dumb ***** on the right keep saying get a job, ( someone has to hire you, and it needs to have a decent wage, all which are not guaranteed in a free market, which you advocate ironically) really? a 3 yr old can work? what if the mom is single? if poor people dont have access to contraceptives, obviously this increases the rate for unwanted pregnancy, right? so wouldnt it be cheaper and less of a burden on the state to provide bc for poor people? disabled, old, sick, children, market vulnerability, all keep you from being personally responsible. you dumb ***** on the right keep saying get a job, ( someone has to hire you, and it needs to have a decent wage, all which are not guaranteed in a free market, which you advocate ironically) really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 a 3 yr old can work? what if the mom is single? Make the sperm donor contribute. if poor people dont have access to contraceptives, obviously this increases the rate for unwanted pregnancy, right? Condoms? so wouldnt it be cheaper and less of a burden on the state to provide bc for poor people? Nope. disabled, old, sick, children, market vulnerability, all keep you from being personally responsible. you dumb ***** on the right keep saying get a job, ( someone has to hire you, and it needs to have a decent wage, all which are not guaranteed in a free market, which you advocate ironically) really? Creating jobs would be another good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Make the sperm donor contribute. Condoms? Nope. Creating jobs would be another good idea. really? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/calculator-birth-control-expensive-really-cost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Make the sperm donor contribute. Condoms? Nope. Creating jobs would be another good idea. you do realize other contraceptives are required sometimes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Are there people who can't get free birth control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 you do realize other contraceptives are required sometimes... When? And again, condoms are cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 When? ummmm.... condoms are not 100% effective. any doctor will tell you dual protection is the best way to prevent pregnancy... and some women prefer bc pills and other contraceptives. some women are uncomfortable with condoms, some women have allergic reactions, some women take bc for hormonal reasons, along with a myriad of other medical reasons... strangely, insurance companies cover viagra for men... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 any doctor will tell you dual protection is the best way to prevent pregnancy. Even better than abstinence? Wow.That's amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) ummmm.... condoms are not 100% effective. any doctor will tell you dual protection is the best way to prevent pregnancy... and some women prefer bc pills and other contraceptives. some women are uncomfortable with condoms, some women have allergic reactions, some women take bc for hormonal reasons, along with a myriad of other medical reasons... strangely, insurance companies cover viagra for men... I'm all for insurance companies providing birth control, & I'd be fine with Medicaid covering it too, but that in no way makes birth control analogous to viagara. One treats a disorder, the other prevents proper body function. They're not principally similar. Edited August 31, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 ummmm.... condoms are not 100% effective. any doctor will tell you dual protection is the best way to prevent pregnancy... and some women prefer bc pills and other contraceptives. some women are uncomfortable with condoms, some women have allergic reactions, some women take bc for hormonal reasons, along with a myriad of other medical reasons... strangely, insurance companies cover viagra for men... Birth control pills aren't 100% effective either and they are 0% effective against STD's. As for Viagra, I don't believe it should be covered. But that gets me back to being able to choose a health insurance plan that covers things you don't want/need, like obstetrical care, fertility treatments, again Viagra, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Birth control pills aren't 100% effective either and they are 0% effective against STD's. As for Viagra, I don't believe it should be covered. But that gets me back to being able to choose a health insurance plan that covers things you don't want/need, like obstetrical care, fertility treatments, again Viagra, etc. but they increase the chance you wont get pregnant... really man... why the hell would a insurance plan not be required to cover viagra if you need it? let alone contraceptives.. I'm all for insurance companies providing birth control, & I'd be fine with Medicaid covering it too, but that in no way makes birth control analogous to viagara. One treats a disorder, the other prevents proper body function. They're not principally similar. the point is many contraceptives are not even for sex, yet women are denied it. viagra is only for sex, but covered... Even better than abstinence? Wow.That's amazing. poor people dont have sex? its healthy to never have human bonding? relationships? the only species to not have sex... im sure that will reduce unwanted pregnancy... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts