Why don't we dissuade poor people from having kids? (Reagan, lawyer, companies)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ironically , the "I am woman, hear roar" crowd becoming the "I am needy , give me more " bunch of damsels in distress who, in 2013 , cannot find a way to pay for birth control . I mean , aren't woman independent enough not to need Daddy to take care of them and by daddy I mean Obama. Pills cost money every month but if you cant afford them , then you are clearly to lazy and stupid to be having sex.
Fluke called having to pay for birth control an untenable burden. Apparently she never met a girl trying to go to school in Afghanistan without being doused with acid. That is a real burden , and even those who suffer from them might call them untenable.
Yet men can get viagara through their insurance.
We know, all women are whores.
If you can not afford to have kids, don't. This is basic personal economics, it is your choice to have the child, make sure you have the resources to raise it.
I hate the pulling on the heartstrings. (Example: "Everyone has a right to children.") No, you don't. And you most certainly do not have the right to force others to pay for your child under the threat of prison if they refuse to do so. (Taxes)
On the other side, stealing from people to pay for birth control and even PSA's is immoral. If you want to spend the money on a cause, earn it. Don't force strangers to pay for your crusade.
Every time you ask the government for something, you are essentially asking somebody, somewhere, to work for free to provide you with something that you are not willing to work for. Spreading this cost out across a population via taxes makes it no less lazy, and no less evil. This applies to birth control, PSA's, and yes, the money to raise a child.
What a load.
Don't even start.
Who is asking someone to pay for their birth control? They pay insurance premiums.
Do you want all medications to be withdrawn from insurance? That would include diabetes medication, heart, anti-depressants, etc?
Are you saying that you have absolutely no government subsidies?
Really?
Last edited by chielgirl; 08-22-2013 at 12:27 PM..
Because if you mention birth control, the Christian Right will have a heart attack.
Just say no!!!
The question is kids they can't afford. That take promoting responsibilty individually. Liberals think the poor are to be managed like a herd in reality and government needs to make their decisions from birth to grave.
You need to educate yourself. The birthrate is declining for everyone. People are not having children or waiting to have children, and are having children later in life. This applies to everyone. Your beliefs to the contrary are just your fictional uninformed ignorant beliefs.
If the birth rate is declining from "too high" to "high" among the poor that doesn't mean more shouldn't be done to reduce it further. Not sure why you don't comprehend it.
The birth rate of the people most capable of affording their children is declining faster than for those least able to afford their children.
It is good news that teen births are dropping. But the drop is unequal by ethnic group. Black and Hispanic teens have a birth rate more than twice as high as whites and almost five times as high as Asians.
If the birth rate is declining from "too high" to "high" among the poor that doesn't mean more shouldn't be done to reduce it further. Not sure why you don't comprehend it.
The birth rate of the people most capable of affording their children is declining faster than for those least able to afford their children.
It is good news that teen births are dropping. But the drop is unequal by ethnic group. Black and Hispanic teens have a birth rate more than twice as high as whites and almost five times as high as Asians.
What needs to be done? The only basis for action which I'd 100% oppose the US government getting involved in telling whom to have children or not, but the ONLY basis for such a radical idea would be if the rates were rapidly increasing.
The exact opposite thing is occurring. So there is definitely no need for such radicial action this is very obvious for those of us that understand that reality, for other people in their ficitonal world, it makes no difference.
Until it is no longer profitable to have kids one can't afford without government subsidies this will continue to be the case and the taxpayer will continue to foot the bill.
The question is kids they can't afford. That take promoting responsibilty individually. Liberals think the poor are to be managed like a herd in reality and government needs to make their decisions from birth to grave.
I am conservative and a Christian and I don't object to using birth control. In fact that is preferable to pumping out a half dozen babies that one can't afford to feed on their own so I totally agree with you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
