Banning Contraception

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

Funny, preventing people from making the responsible choice, contraception & safe sex, is considered by this upside down crew to be promoting personal responsibility.

 

It is a health clinic for people who have no insurance and can't afford medical care.  This is a health issue.  Banning contraceptives, even instruction on natural family planning from those clinics, has a very real effect. 

 

For those of us who live in the real world, this will not result in any less sexual activity.  While some of you are pointing fingers or bewailing the lack of personal responsibility in the modern world, the rest of us will be trying to figure out what to do with the unwanted babies and increased spread of disease that will result. 

 

Maybe we should shut down drug and alcohol rehab facilities and refuse all health care treatment subsidized in anyway by the government for cancer patients who smoked or anyone whose unhealthy choices contribute to their illnesses.

633115[/snapback]

 

 

I can just imagine the scene at the clinic..."well Cletus, I would have used a condom, but the evil Government won't pay for my condoms, beer, and cigarettes so I guess I don't have a choice. I'm sure as hell not giving up my scratch offs or budwieser so I guess I'll have to have some more unwanted children. Hey at least the Government will give me $500 for each brat the wife pops out! Maybe I could sell my food stamps and WIC checks while collecting unemployment and welfare due to this horrible back injury that keeps me from working, but for some reason doesn't affect my softball prowess."

 

If you really manage to screw up your life so bad that you can't afford contraceptives and basic necessities, you are either incredibly lazy or incredibly unfortunate. The vast majority fall into the lazy catagory. Everyone in this country gets a free High School education and the opportunity for college through scholarships or Government aid. Most people living in poverty chose that lifestyle at some point in their life. Whether it was in high school or in their 30's. Increasing the number of handouts doesn't solve the problem, it just perpetuates the victim mentallity so prevalent in this country.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Funny, preventing people from making the responsible choice, contraception & safe sex, is considered by this upside down crew to be promoting personal responsibility.

 

It is a health clinic for people who have no insurance and can't afford medical care.  This is a health issue.  Banning contraceptives, even instruction on natural family planning from those clinics, has a very real effect. 

 

For those of us who live in the real world, this will not result in any less sexual activity.  While some of you are pointing fingers or bewailing the lack of personal responsibility in the modern world, the rest of us will be trying to figure out what to do with the unwanted babies and increased spread of disease that will result. 

 

Maybe we should shut down drug and alcohol rehab facilities and refuse all health care treatment subsidized in anyway by the government for cancer patients who smoked or anyone whose unhealthy choices contribute to their illnesses.

633115[/snapback]

 

How about we let the Government sterilize the poor? I, mean since it's a health issue, we wouldn't want any unplanned pregnancies. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[SilverNRed]

Heaven forbid people take responsibility for their own behavior when the government is still around.

633105[/snapback]

How can we expect people to use contraceptives if the government isn't paying for it? The government should pay for everything because at least then it's free.

 

[D_House]

You cold-hearted bastard. Didn't you know that all government spending should be based on emotion?

633121[/snapback]

I see that you are being ironic here, but I would argue that this program cut is based on emotion, and rather than being an example of fiscal responsibility, is an example of the government trying to legislate morality. See:

 

"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.

 

In general, when it comes to healthcare, the cost of preventive techniques are far less than the cost of treatment. Common sense leads me to think that family planning education and condoms are a relatively cost-effective means of reducing the spread of STDs as well as reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

 

I agree that condoms are not that expensive for even the poorest of Missouri's citizens to purchase, but STD treatment and childcare are quite expensive, and guess who will be picking up the tab for these things? Yeah, that's right, the taxpayer. Not to mention the potential increase in the use of an even more morally repugnant (in my opinion) "contraceptive" technique that some women may employ in the case of an unwanted pregnancy - abortion.

[Johnny Coli]

There's too many posts in this thread to respond to individually, so I'll make my points in this post.

 

Aren't these programs that they are failing to fund actually tools for taking personal responsibilty? If a person who can't afford health insurance coverage wants birth control, prophylactics, and/or family planning, isn't that taking personal responsibilty? They just can't afford it on their own. I understand the argument of "motherment" that always gets thrown around on this board, but the consequences from not even as little involvement as providing birth control for poor women that want it far exceeds the cost of the pill.

 

The minimum wage in Missouri is $5.15. Businesses that make less than $500,000 a year are exempt from paying even this. I understand the reasoning of "If the government won't give them away for free, they should go buy them themselves." However, it is cost-prohibitive for women to buy these contraceptives on their own if they do not have insurance coverage (birth control pills can cost from $20 and $35, or $20 and $50 a month), and barring birth control, it would be left up to purchasing condoms. At KRC's listed price of $8.99, that is a high cost to pay for someone making $5.15 an hour before taxes. The argument at that point would be "tough sh--", but it is completely unreasonable to expect people to not have sex.

 

Would any of you give up sex altogether?

 

To the poster who suggested that the poor are lazy and enjoy being poor, that is one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen posted in this forum.

 

Lastly, this issue in Missouri isn't about "motherment" and "personal responsibility". This is about a religious group pushing an agenda.

[KRC]

I see that you are being ironic here, but I would argue that this program cut is based on emotion, and rather than being an example of fiscal responsibility, is an example of the government trying to legislate morality.  See:

 

"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.

 

In general, when it comes to healthcare, the cost of preventive techniques are far less than the cost of treatment. Common sense leads me to think that family planning education and condoms are a relatively cost-effective means of reducing the spread of STDs as well as reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. 

 

I agree that condoms are not that expensive for even the poorest of Missouri's citizens to purchase, but STD treatment and childcare are quite expensive, and guess who will be picking up the tab for these things?  Yeah, that's right, the taxpayer.  Not to mention the potential increase in the use of an even more morally repugnant (in my opinion) "contraceptive" technique that some women may employ in the case of an unwanted pregnancy - abortion.

633388[/snapback]

 

 

This gets back to, again, the taxpayer paying for personal irresponsibility. Fiscal responsibility is not adding more to government spending to pay for irresponsible behavior.

[KRC]

There's too many posts in this thread to respond to individually, so I'll make my points in this post.

 

Aren't these programs that they are failing to fund actually tools for taking personal responsibilty?  If a person who can't afford health insurance coverage wants birth control, prophylactics, and/or family planning, isn't that taking personal responsibilty?  They just can't afford it on their own.  I understand the argument of "motherment" that always gets thrown around on this board, but the consequences from not even as little involvement as providing birth control for poor women that want it far exceeds the cost of the pill. 

 

The minimum wage in Missouri is $5.15.  Businesses that make less than $500,000 a year are exempt from paying even this.  I understand the reasoning of "If the government won't give them away for free, they should go buy them themselves."  However, it is cost-prohibitive for women to buy these contraceptives on their own if they do not have insurance coverage (birth control pills can cost from $20 and $35, or $20 and $50 a month), and barring birth control, it would be left up to purchasing condoms.  At KRC's listed price of $8.99, that is a high cost to pay for someone making $5.15 an hour before taxes.  The argument at that point would be "tough sh--", but it is completely unreasonable to expect people to not have sex. 

 

Would any of you give up sex altogether?

 

To the poster who suggested that the poor are lazy and enjoy being poor, that is one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen posted in this forum.

 

Lastly, this issue in Missouri isn't about "motherment" and "personal responsibility".  This is about a religious group pushing an agenda.

633398[/snapback]

 

 

My job doesn't pay me enough to buy a temperature-controlled fermenter for making beer. The government should create a new program and the taxpayers should pay for my new temperature-controlled fermenter. Why should I be deprived of making certan styles of beer, just becuse I cannot afford the necessary equipment?

[D_House]

This gets back to, again, the taxpayer paying for personal irresponsibility. Fiscal responsibility is not adding more to government spending to pay for irresponsible behavior.

633402[/snapback]

I agree, but the present reality of the state of government spending is that we are financially culpable for the mistakes of others. Working within this system, I don't think it makes much sense to cut a relatively low cost program that might actually save money through the prevention of situations that would end up costing the taxpayer more. Unless of course, there is another agenda at play - for example that which is stated quite clearly in the quote from the Missouri legislator.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Would any of you give up sex altogether?

 

Yeah. It's called marriage.

 

Lastly, this issue in Missouri isn't about "motherment" and "personal responsibility".  This is about a religious group pushing an agenda.

633398[/snapback]

 

Actually, it's about everyone pushing an agenda. For some people, it's religious. For some, it's "personal responsibility". For some, it's "public health". For some, it's insulating the individual from the consequences of their own actions.

 

Count me in the "personal responsibility" crowd. I don't think contraception causes promiscuity, I don't care whether people are promiscuous or not, I tend to doubt that God's so obssessed with it as some of his followers seem to believe. But I don't think it's the government's responsibility to protect people from their own actions.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

To the poster who suggested that the poor are lazy and enjoy being poor, that is one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen posted in this forum.

 

 

 

Where exactly did I say they enjoy being poor? I said the choices they made in life led to them being poor in the vast majority of cases. How many times have you seen someone at the food store spend their cash on beer and cigarettes and their food stamps on food? Are you really telling me that anyone with even below average inteligence can't work hard enough to graduate from high school and find a job that pays above minimum wage? If education is not your thing, find a skill and work hard at it. It is certainly possible to distinguish yourself from the crowd with hard work and respect. Minimum wage was never intended to provide enough income to raise a family. Why do you deserve to make a good living just because you spend 30-40 hours a week doing a job a 15 year old kid can do? If you don't have any skills or education or cannot hold down a job long enough to get a raise, then work 2 jobs and buy what you want with your own money...not mine. Don't tell me minimum wage is too low when I can't get a correct order at mcdonalds let alone anything that resembles good, polite service. Ignorance would be thinking that increasing government handouts and forcing pay increases beyond what the market supports will help the economy or fix the poverty problem.

[Mickey]

There's too many posts in this thread to respond to individually, so I'll make my points in this post.

 

Aren't these programs that they are failing to fund actually tools for taking personal responsibilty?  If a person who can't afford health insurance coverage wants birth control, prophylactics, and/or family planning, isn't that taking personal responsibilty?  They just can't afford it on their own.  I understand the argument of "motherment" that always gets thrown around on this board, but the consequences from not even as little involvement as providing birth control for poor women that want it far exceeds the cost of the pill. 

 

The minimum wage in Missouri is $5.15.  Businesses that make less than $500,000 a year are exempt from paying even this.  I understand the reasoning of "If the government won't give them away for free, they should go buy them themselves."  However, it is cost-prohibitive for women to buy these contraceptives on their own if they do not have insurance coverage (birth control pills can cost from $20 and $35, or $20 and $50 a month), and barring birth control, it would be left up to purchasing condoms.  At KRC's listed price of $8.99, that is a high cost to pay for someone making $5.15 an hour before taxes.  The argument at that point would be "tough sh--", but it is completely unreasonable to expect people to not have sex. 

 

Would any of you give up sex altogether?

 

To the poster who suggested that the poor are lazy and enjoy being poor, that is one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen posted in this forum.

 

Lastly, this issue in Missouri isn't about "motherment" and "personal responsibility".  This is about a religious group pushing an agenda.

633398[/snapback]

Apparently it would be more fiscally responsible to save the $8.99, pretend that people won't have sex and then spend a few hundred grand feeding, sheltering and providing health care for the babies that result and for the diseases that spread more rapidly. Now there is sound public policy for you.

 

Soooo many here are stuck in a philosophical lab. Such a fascinating debate on personal responsibility. Classic sound and fury signifying nothing.

 

Lets make it simple:

 

A.Poor woman doesn't want kids, wants sex + condom = no kid, no disease

B.Poor woman doesn't want kids, wants sex - condoms = kids and disease

 

I choose option "A".

 

What you have to understand is that these people aren't just against condoms being provided in a health clinic, they are against publicly funded health clinics period. I suspect primarily because they don't ever anticipate needing one themselves but that is another story.

[Mickey]

To the poster who suggested that the poor are lazy and enjoy being poor, that is one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen posted in this forum.

Where exactly did I say they enjoy being poor?  I said the choices they made in life led to them being poor in the vast majority of cases.  How many times have you seen someone at the food store spend their cash on beer and cigarettes and their food stamps on food?  Are you really telling me that anyone with even below average inteligence can't work hard enough to graduate from high school and find a job that pays above minimum wage?  If education is not your thing, find a skill and work hard at it.  It is certainly possible to distinguish yourself from the crowd with hard work and respect.  Minimum wage was never intended to provide enough income to raise a family.  Why do you deserve to make a good living just because you spend 30-40 hours a week doing a job a 15 year old kid can do?  If you don't have any skills or education or cannot hold down a job long enough to get a raise, then work 2 jobs and buy what you want with your own money...not mine.  Don't tell me minimum wage is too low when I can't get a correct order at mcdonalds let alone anything that resembles good, polite service.  Ignorance would be thinking that increasing government handouts and forcing pay increases beyond what the market supports will help the economy or fix the poverty problem.

633543[/snapback]

 

We are not trying to fix the problems of the world. We are trying to get a condom to woman who is going to have sex and who can't afford to raise the child that might result or pay for the medical treatment needed if she catches a disease. Pennywise and pound foolish.

 

Are you also against vaccines for the poor? Let 'em get small pox I say.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Lets make it simple:

 

A.Poor woman doesn't want kids, wants sex + condom = no kid, no disease

B.Poor woman doesn't want kids, wants sex - condoms = kids and disease

 

I choose option "A". 

633592[/snapback]

 

You choose?

[KRC]

You choose? 

633599[/snapback]

 

I am still waiting for Mickey and others to pony up the cash for my new temperature-controlled fermenter. I cannot survive on ales alone. I need lagers and pilsners.

 

WHERE IS MY GUBMENT CHECK, DAMMIT!!

[Ghost of BiB]

No, I don't agree with the motivations by the lawmaker. It makes perfect sense to me to hand out contraception. I also don't have a problem with eliminating public funding for it for fiscal reasons. As I said, not ideological.

 

No, I don't agree that removing public funding for something is the same as banning it. That is one of the most liberal left wing democrat philosophy things I've heard in a while.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I am still waiting for Mickey and others to pony up the cash for my new temperature-controlled fermenter. I cannot survive on ales alone. I need lagers and pilsners.

633604[/snapback]

 

Let's make it simple:

 

A.Poor KRC doesn't want to go to the store, wants beer + fermenter = beer

B.Poor KRC doesn't want to go to the store, wants beer - fermenter = no beer

 

Mickey chooses option "B".

 

 

Because apparently you don't have a say in the matter.

[The Avenger]

Fiscal responsibility is not adding more to government spending to pay for irresponsible behavior.

633402[/snapback]

 

One woman's condom is another man's war in Iraq, oli company handout or tax break for the top 1%...

[KRC]

Let's make it simple:

 

A.Poor KRC doesn't want to go to the store, wants beer + fermenter = beer

B.Poor KRC doesn't want to go to the store, wants beer - fermenter = no beer

 

Mickey chooses option "B". 

Because apparently you don't have a say in the matter. 

633622[/snapback]

 

...funny...isn't he the first one to B word when the "religious right" tries to force their morals on him?

 

Still waiting for my gubment check for the new fermenter. It is my right to have it.

[KRC]

One woman's condom is another man's war in Iraq, oli company handout or tax break for the top 1%...

633631[/snapback]

 

You are really having trouble with this whole debating thingy, aren't you?

[The Avenger]

You are really having trouble with this whole debating thingy, aren't you?

633637[/snapback]

 

No moreso than you are seeing the rediculousness of your arguments...

 

How can anyone compalin about funding womens health programs by a government with NO fiscal responsibility at all? A government spending billions in Iraq and giving out tax breaks during a time or war and raising the debt limit to a staggering $9 trillion - and you call for fiscal responsibility over condoms for $8.99? That's rich.....