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.
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 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.
Why do you hate poor people?
At least that is what I was asked last time I expected people to pay for their own birth control.
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 just a tag line put on by the activists. It's untrue but it still fools people.
remember that the progressives from both parties want the people dependent on government for everything. the more dependence on government, the more control government has over the people.
As a somewhat libertarian conservative, I actually favor subsidized birth control (condoms mainly) and feel that high school councilors should be provided with them to distribute to students upon request.
IMHO, it's worth the trade-off.
Last edited by PedroMartinez; 07-30-2015 at 02:01 PM..
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.
Try this reasoning then:
Birth control is a whole lot less expensive than welfare.
Birth control is a whole lot less expensive than welfare.
Your move.
I agree. The free phones, internet, etc, is ridiculous, but this is one area where we can spend a little in order to save a lot. The hospital bill alone, for the delivery of one child puts the tax payers on the hook for thousands of dollars. Then after the child is born, we have to pay for welfare, food stamps, pediatric visits, and education of the child. Pass out all the free condoms and birth control pills they can use. It is a drop in the bucket compared to the alternative. It's a nice thought to think that people should just be responsible for their own birth control, but we are not exactly talking about responsible people here.
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.
Birth control is free now. No excuses.
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.
Why can't "poor" people afford birth control?
