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.
We want to punish women who want abortion.
We want to punish women choosing to have their baby.
We do not want insurance companies to include birth control as they do thousands of other medications.
We want to punish women. And, now we debate forcing women to use birth control against their will.
Last edited by RonkonkomaNative; 01-24-2015 at 11:08 AM..
Reason: grammar
We want to punish women who want abortion.
We want to punish women choosing to have their baby.
We do not want insurance companies to include birth control as they do thousands of other medications.
We want to punish women. And, now we debate forcing women to use birth control against their will.
I could care less about what woman want to do with there body as long as I'm not paying for them to sit around at home while I have to be at work everyday. I'm in favor of woman's choice to abort that's a personal freedom, but if they choose to take government aid for each kid they have then they should have some requirements. No one is forcing anyone to take welfare.
I could care less about what woman want to do with there body as long as I'm not paying for them to sit around at home while I have to be at work everyday. I'm in favor of woman's choice to abort that's a personal freedom, but if they choose to take government aid for each kid they have then they should have some requirements. No one is forcing anyone to take welfare.
You want to punish them, just admit it. Exactly how many women do you see sitting around on subsidies?
You want to punish them. What happens to your argument when these women refuse because of their faith?
Have you figured out the percentage of your income goes for subsidies for the poor?
It's disturbing that there is a segment of society in which women recklessly and carelessly allow themselves to get pregnant time and time again, despite all of the methods of contraception that exist out there. And the women usually start popping out babies while they're still in their teens. Why does the government feel the need to reward these women with welfare benefits? It should instead focus on discouraging these women from having a large number of kids. The goverment should impose some kind of limit on welfare benefits - e.g., you're only eligible for welfare benefits for 2 kids max.
I have heard some make this statement before if one takes government aid they should have to meet some some requirements birth control, and Drug testing. At one time they were forced to come in and look for a job I don't think that is required any longer.
No.
If we make them stop taking drugs they will just live longer. The life expectancy of a habitual meth user is 5 years. And their "dependents" will probably do better without them. Untitled Document
We want to punish women who want abortion.
We want to punish women choosing to have their baby.
We do not want insurance companies to include birth control as they do thousands of other medications.
We want to punish women. And, now we debate forcing women to use birth control against their will.
Let's be truthful.
We want to allow unborn women to be born.
We don't want to punish women who choose life, nor do we want to subsidize her decision (regardless of whether she chooses life or death).
Birth control is not medicine; medicine is "a compound or preparation used for the treatment or prevention of disease...". Furthermore, women are not entitled to BC any more than men are entitled to condoms. Anyone who wants birth control (or condoms) should go buy it (them).
Under the OP's proposal, no woman would be forced to use birth control, because any woman who didn't want BC could avoid the mandate by staying off of welfare. If she didn't take welfare, she wouldn't have to take birth control.
I AM SO tired of people who are children haters, children are the FUTURE without them nobody will be paying taxes when you are collecting Social Security and Medicaid in your future, its so much more productive to think about how to STOP the cycle!
You're reading your own fears into what was said & not everyone who disagrees with you is a child hater... that's unfair conjecture on your part. People were commenting on wo/men not having more children once receiving public assistance. No one suggested starving children... some surmised that just informing parents upfront that if one has more children, benefits will not increase & that knowledge might possibly be a deterrent.
And, if you have 5 kids & your life will hang by a thread should your husband leave you or die, make sure he secures life insurance for you & the kids now & perhaps have a lawyer draw up a financial/alimony/child support agreement before divorce happens. I know someone who did the latter after their 1 child was born & it made their divorce, after 20-yrs of marriage far easier. It's your responsibility to make sure you & your children's futures are secure now.
Birth control is not medicine; medicine is "a compound or preparation used for the treatment or prevention of disease...". Furthermore, women are not entitled to BC any more than men are entitled to condoms. Anyone who wants birth control (or condoms) should go buy it (them).
Really? Then why do I take it for medical purposes, at a dose that is too low to even prevent pregnancy? I doubt my doctor just hands it out for kicks... and if it weren't considered a medical DRUG, you could buy it over the counter like condoms. But no; it requires a medical examination and prescription, which is why it's covered under medical plans etc. And nobody really gets the pill for FREE, so that's a fallacy I can't even address specifically.
Under the OP's proposal, no woman would be forced to use birth control, because any woman who didn't want BC could avoid the mandate by staying off of welfare. If she didn't take welfare, she wouldn't have to take birth control.
Maybe you can answer the question nobody else has addressed, despite it being mentioned a handful of times... what about women who CANNOT take the birth control, for either medical or religious reasons? Wouldn't withholding government benefits from these folks be discrimination, based on their religion and/or "disability?" For example, some women can't take the pill because they're at a high risk of stroke, or because they've had certain types of cancers. Is it fair to deny them any government benefits? I'd love to see someone answer this!
You're reading your own fears into what was said & not everyone who disagrees with you is a child hater... that's unfair conjecture on your part. People were commenting on wo/men not having more children once receiving public assistance. No one suggested starving children... some surmised that just informing parents upfront that if one has more children, benefits will not increase & that knowledge might possibly be a deterrent.
Maybe some people here "surmised" this, but the OP was suggesting a complete elimination of benefits for those (women specifically) who don't comply. So yes, it is being suggested that children starve, even if not by you specifically. I think most Americans would get on board with the other idea, being the elimination of additional benefits after a certain number of children... but that's a very different proposal from what the OP asked.
Quote:
And, if you have 5 kids & your life will hang by a thread should your husband leave you or die, make sure he secures life insurance for you & the kids now & perhaps have a lawyer draw up a financial/alimony/child support agreement before divorce happens. I know someone who did the latter after their 1 child was born & it made their divorce, after 20-yrs of marriage far easier. It's your responsibility to make sure you & your children's futures are secure now.
Great idea, but what if they can't afford a lawyer and/or the monthly premiums on life insurance? Or did you think these things came free? Lawyers make a lot of money drawing up wills, financial agreements, etc, and the "free lawyers" will only provide bare minimum services. So we're back at the drawing board, where people of lesser means are at a major disadvantage if they lose a spouse + government benefits. You claim to not support children suffering, but that's precisely what would happen in this scenario.
Would you be okay with creating a new division of public legal services, where low-income citizens could have these things done for free? I'm guessing most would say no, since it would cost even more money than letting them keep welfare as is... plus, there's the whole "if they couldn't afford to pay for these things, they shouldn't have procreated" attitude we keep seeing here. Not a very helpful or productive argument, when we have millions of people depending on social services. Is it?
It's disturbing that there is a segment of society in which women recklessly and carelessly allow themselves to get pregnant time and time again, despite all of the methods of contraception that exist out there. And the women usually start popping out babies while they're still in their teens. Why does the government feel the need to reward these women with welfare benefits? It should instead focus on discouraging these women from having a large number of kids. The goverment should impose some kind of limit on welfare benefits - e.g., you're only eligible for welfare benefits for 2 kids max.
As I just said above, I think more people would be okay with a cap on "benefits per child." But again, that is not what the OP suggested! And just out of curiosity, do you support comprehensive sexual education in schools (preferably starting around 4th-5th grade), low-cost reproductive services like Planned Parenthood, condom distribution for teens, etc? Hopefully you do, but I've encountered SO many who don't support these things - while in the next breath saying what you've said, regarding the focus on discouraging irresponsible reproduction.
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.
