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.
If I own a car and offer you a ride and you accept, and I then crash into something, then are you just as responsible because you were in the car when the crash happened? Because this is pretty much what women say when they claim the man is just as responsible for unwanted childbirth. It's a bull**** argument and just shows how women don't want responsibility when it doesn't suit them. If you believe your womb only belongs to you and that men should not have any say over it, then it's fair that you also take full responsibility for it. I am sick of listening to women whine about the lack of equality only to then refuse taking responsibility for themselves in favor of blaming men.
So you are saying men aren't responsible for getting a women pregnant. Who do you think gets them pregnant They don't do it by themselves.
I have heard claims going around by some people from the left that birth control should be subsidized so that people on lower incomes can get them to avoid unplanned pregnancy.
As a low-income earner myself, I find this to be utterly laughable.
Condoms are not that expensive. If a person is single, then their most likely method to get laid is by meeting women at clubs or bars, or in some other way have fun during the night. This will probably involve alcohol. Alcohol isn't exactly cheap, so if somebody can afford drinking then buying a condom is a trivial expense. But let's say they are in a relationship. Assuming they have sex 2-3 times a week, a decent sized box of condoms will last 2-3 weeks. So here the expense of condoms gets higher, but not to a point of being crazy expensive. Not to mention that now we have 2 people sharing the cost making it even less of a problem.
I'm sorry, but I just find the idea that poor people can't afford condoms to be utter nonsense. How can they afford booze but not condoms?
I'm sorry but I don't buy into your reasoning.
It's not done because they can't afford it.
It's done to encourage them to use it, leading to less babies, leading to less on welfare.
It's simple economics. Public birth control leads to less spent on welfare.
Poor people cannot afford birth control due to unplanned tattoos.
If there was a federal Tattoo Stamp Program, then poor people could have tattoos and birth control.
Obama should immediately legislate the Affordable Tattoo Act using an Executive Order, because people are entitled to tattoos.
Thank you for the laugh! Though I almost spit my water out all over the keyboard reading this. It's funny though, because it does seem that those who cry that they're poor (I'm by no means rich) have a ton of tattoos, which from what I understand are quite pricey. Hmmm.... spending money on some form of birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies when you're not ready to support kids, or expensive tattoos? Priorities anyone?
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.