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.
Part of the reason they are having more children is because those children are subsidized by the taxpayer. Take away the financial incentive to have children, and many will welfare recipients will stop having children.
That's a POV I can see and understand it. It's not the solution at the end of the day because people are going to screw up and still have babies, no matter what. if they had access to some BC and abortions, it's still cheaper in the long run because like you mentioned a large chunk of those people are on some government assistance. I still think if there were less kids via abortion and god that sounds awful to say, just being pragmatic, it would be cheaper for the tax payer.
I'll say you bring up a valid point, but where does it end? Should someone be denied coverage for lung cancer if they made the mistake of smoking in their teens? Should they be denied if they were attacked by a puma while taking a recreational hike?
I'll say you bring up a valid point, but where does it end? Should someone be denied coverage for lung cancer if they made the mistake of smoking in their teens? Should they be denied if they were attacked by a puma while taking a recreational hike?
Nobody should be forced to pay for them, but nothing is stopping people from helping by choice.
Why is it that the only mistake that should not be mitigated is the mistake of unwanted pregnancy even though tax payers DO NOT PAY FOR IT?
The other scenarios you posted only display your lack of understanding of how public service works, so I am going to focus on this point.
I made no mention of abortion specifically, rather that if you do not want to have children and you choose to have sex without using birth control because 1.) you can't afford it or 2.) you don't like how condoms feel then you and your husband are solely responsible for the consequences of that action and I should not have to contribute a dime to your situation. I don't like condoms either, but I used them and still pulled out to make damn sure that I mitigated as many risks as possible.
If that was true, there wouldn't be starving children in third world countries.
"Part of the reason they are having more children is because those children are subsidized by the taxpayer"
The other part is lack of education. It's not a right in third-world countries but every American citizen it universally entitled to an education. Why many forfeit that right is beyond me.
That's a POV I can see and understand it. It's not the solution at the end of the day because people are going to screw up and still have babies, no matter what. if they had access to some BC and abortions, it's still cheaper in the long run because like you mentioned a large chunk of those people are on some government assistance. I still think if there were less kids via abortion and god that sounds awful to say, just being pragmatic, it would be cheaper for the tax payer.
One can make that argument about almost every irresponsible behavior. IMO, the solution is to stop funding those behaviors with taxpayer money. It seems harsh, but it is not and never has been the taxpayer's responsibly to fund irresponsible behavior.
One can make that argument about almost every irresponsible behavior. IMO, the solution is to stop funding those behaviors with taxpayer money. It seems harsh, but it is not and never has been the taxpayer's responsibly to fund irresponsible behavior.
I agree in theory,
But the 3rd world comment solidified my point. People are still going to have babies, whether or not we "remove" the incentives to do so.
These unwanted babies are going to be more of a drain on the system than the smallish amount in relative terms that PP is funded through tax dollars.
It's still a net gain in my opinion. Like I posted, you're paying buddy, just whether its on the front or the back end.
The other scenarios you posted only display your lack of understanding of how public service works, so I am going to focus on this point.
I made no mention of abortion specifically, rather that if you do not want to have children and you choose to have sex without using birth control because 1.) you can't afford it or 2.) you don't like how condoms feel then you and your husband are solely responsible for the consequences of that action and I should not have to contribute a dime to your situation. I don't like condoms either, but I used them and still pulled out to make damn sure that I mitigated as many risks as possible.
You complained about tax payers funding behaviors that carry risks, I listed risky behaviors that cost tax payers money, no matter how you label it.
How are those people going to learn from their mistakes if they are allowed to mitigate the consequences?
No one has a problem with people mitigating the results of an accident or a mistake except when it comes to a woman ending an accidental pregnancy, even though she pays for it herself.
BTW.....having an abortion IS a consequence. Do you think having an abortion is a fun, pain free event?
"Part of the reason they are having more children is because those children are subsidized by the taxpayer"
The other part is lack of education. It's not a right in third-world countries but every American citizen it universally entitled to an education. Why many forfeit that right is beyond me.
Even without education, I am pretty sure the people in third world countries know that having sex makes babies.....yet, they still have sex even though the children they already have are starving.....no financial incentive needed.
The point: People are going to engage in the risky behavior of sex with or without a financial incentive.
The biggest bang for our tax dollars is education and easy access to birth control, and that means BC covered by health insurance or provided free of charge to those without insurance.
Preventative medicine is always cheaper than the alternative.
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.
