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.
Fine, then let them pay for their birth control or abstain from sex. It's a simple as that. The taxpayer shouldn't have to cover it. If they are too irresponsible to do that then it's on them. Stop paying people for having more babies that they can afford to feed also. That's the reason they act irresponsibly. They know they can get an abortion or that the government will pay for their broods.
If that was true, there wouldn't be so many starving children in third world countries.
They can't feed the children they already have, do they abstain? Oh hell no, they just keep having more.
What makes you think it would turn out any different here?
That entire comparison of meds needed for "fat people" to abortion was more than ridiculous.
I was comparing it to insurance covering birth control.
Why single out women only when it comes to taking responsibility?
The cost of birth control pales in comparison to the amount of money spent on healthcare because people do not take responsibility for their own health.
How many people could get off of expensive medication, that we all pay for in one way or another, if they just changed their eating habits and exercised more?
If insurance covers meds for lifestyle choices, why shouldn't it cover meds for sex?.....which is also a lifestyle choice?
How is my paying for pills for someone who chooses to have sex any different than my paying for pills for someone who chooses to be a couch potato?
We should change the way health insurance works. If your medical condition is preventable and caused by a CHOICE you are making, insurance shouldn't cover it.
It's not on them though because taxpayers like you and me do pay for people to have more babies than they can afford. That's the reality, and we're probably not going to be able to change it. I get 110% your position but sometimes you have to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
They're not having unprotected sex because they can get a government funded abortions (some may be for the later benefits though, agreed on that). No one wants to need an abortion. They're having unprotected sex because they are impulsive, low-IQ individuals who make bad decisions all around and faced with the decision of have sex/not have sex when they don't have birth control available choose wrong.
Not paying for their bad, impulsive behavior when birth control is readily available at minimal costs to them. Nor should the lives of the unborn pay for their low-IQ behavior. Adoption is always an option.
Not paying for their bad, impulsive behavior when birth control is readily available at minimal costs to them. Nor should the lives of the unborn pay for their low-IQ behavior. Adoption is always an option.
Good news, federal tax dollars aren't used to fund abortions, problem solved!
Not paying for their bad, impulsive behavior when birth control is readily available at minimal costs to them. Nor should the lives of the unborn pay for their low-IQ behavior. Adoption is always an option.
Adoption is not an option if I decide I do not want to risk my financial security, my health, and my life to endure a pregnancy.
Not paying for their bad, impulsive behavior when birth control is readily available at minimal costs to them. Nor should the lives of the unborn pay for their low-IQ behavior. Adoption is always an option.
No use arguing with you, you have a penchant for entering an argument with a closed mind and leaving it the same way.
I was comparing it to insurance covering birth control.
I agree with you. Birth control should be covered by insurance companies.
Quote:
Why single out women only when it comes to taking responsibility?
Until they come up with a hormonal form of birth control for men, that works and is easily mainstreamed, it's going to remain status quo. Right now, both parties can buy condoms. So it's left up to the woman to manage her chosen form of birth control if she and her partner don't use condoms - because she's the one who is going to get pregnant and possibly with an unwanted pregnancy.
The other issue is that both men and women can end up over weight or obese and need the same meds to cover the same conditions via insurance.
Quote:
The cost of birth control pales in comparison to the amount of money spent on healthcare because people do not take responsibility for their own health.
How many people could get off of expensive medication, that we all pay for in one way or another, if they just changed their eating habits and exercised more?
If insurance covers meds for lifestyle choices, why shouldn't it cover meds for sex?.....which is also a lifestyle choice?
Insurance that covers birth control, as it stands right now, is specific to women.
Sex is a lifestyle choice?
As opposed to not having sex?
I guess, if one is in the porno industry or in to poly-amory, when one's life focuses around sex and who is having it with whom and how to get your feelings hurt 24/7/365.
Most of the time it's an act that two consenting adults agree to do together. When they feel like it.
Quote:
How is my paying for pills for someone who chooses to have sex any different than my paying for pills for someone who chooses to be a couch potato?
Where is the preventative insurance coverage for gym memberships, personal trainers, nutritionists, psychologists, etc., for those who "might" eat themselves in to obesity? That's what birth control for women is. Preventative.
Quote:
We should change the way health insurance works. If your medical condition is preventable and caused by a CHOICE you are making, insurance shouldn't cover it.
But that would include pregnancy….pregnancy is absolutely preventable. Don't have sex, use an OTC condom, chart your ovulation and avoid "those days" if you're going to pull and pray. Get your tubes tied, have your spouse get a vasectomy…
Quote:
The bad news......that would also include men.
How does it not already include men?
Last edited by Informed Info; 10-25-2015 at 10:36 PM..
I agree with you. Birth control should be covered by insurance companies.
Until they come up with hormonal form of birth control for men, that works and is mainstreamed, it's going to remain status quo. Right now, both parties can buy condoms. So it's left up to the woman to manage her chosen form of birth control if she and her partner don't use condoms - because she's the one who is going to get pregnant and possibly with an unwanted pregnancy.
The other issue is that both men and women can end up over weight or obese and need the same meds to cover the same conditions via insurance.
Insurance that covers birth control, as it stands right now, is specific to women.
Sex is a lifestyle choice?
As opposed to not having sex?
I guess, if one is in the porno industry or in to poly-amory, when one's life focuses around sex and whose having it with whom and how to get your feelings hurt 24/7/365.
Most of the time it's an act that two consenting adults agree to do together. When they feel like it.
Where is the preventative insurance coverage for gym memberships, personal trainers, nutritionists, psychologists, etc., for those who "might" eat themselves in to obesity? That's what birth control for women is. Preventative. Then we might be able to look at the two situations equally.
But that would include pregnancy….pregnancy is absolutely preventable. Don't have sex, use an OTC condom, chart your ovulation and avoid "those days" if you're going to pull and pray. Get your tubes tied, have your spouse get a vasectomy…
How does it not already include men?
Because we don't tell men we are not going to pay for this pill because a lifestyle change will suffice.
Isn't abstaining from sex a lifestyle choice? Isn't that what some here are telling women to do? Having or not having sex is a lifestyle choice, just as what you choose to eat and how much exercise you do is a lifestyle choice. "Women don't need BC, just don't have sex." How many times have we heard that?
Who needs a personal trainer and nutritionist? I think most of us know when we are eating something we shouldn't and know we shouldn't sit on the couch all day, don't we?
As far as women getting their tubes tied.....good luck finding a doctor who will do it if you are under thirty or don't already have three kids. So, that is not a viable option for many women......especially the ones who never want children, ironic huh?
Where are the laws on women having their tubes tied? Why shouldn't any woman of legal age be able to get her tubes tied? Why is that left up to the personal discretion of each, individual doctor?
You want to hold women responsible for unwanted pregnancy, yet you will only allow certain women to have access to the most reliable, and one of the safest, forms of birth control? Does that sound right to 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.
