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.
and why do you and OP think that responsibility isn't being practiced?
a couple can take all the precaustions, use all the birth control in the world, and it only takes ONE thing, one moment that can all go to hell.
Birth CONTROL isn't 100% effective. Never has been, never will be (short of actually getting a vasectomy and/or having one's uterus removed).
A couple can have the condom in place, the diaphragm installed still get pregnant, due to a defect in the condom or the diaphragm moves during sex.
What we want is for conservative nutjobs to realize that, just because we have sex, doesn't mean that we aren't taking the precautions necessary to try and prevent pregnancies.
All conservative nutjobs see is YOU have SEX = YOU NOT RESPONSIBLE.
Sorry, WE do not live in such a black and white world.
Yes, I think we understand that they are not 100% effective, but that isn't the point.
The responsibility matter is them going out and spending their own money to provide for such. The argument here is that if it isn't provided cheap for them or free, they won't use it which is an fear claim to keep funding them.
We do not see such, and here is the problem as you seem to have developed this entire perspective based on your own position which has nothing to do with "conservatives".
The issue concerning sex is not that if you have sex, you are irresponsible, but that if you fail to accept the consequence of such choice be it unprotected or not, you are irresponsible. This is the true issue here where people treat abortion as a simple solution to being promiscuous.
Lastly, if the issue were simply that the contraceptives failed, and that is why people were getting pregnant, this would be a non-issue. Contraceptives failing is not the position of those who object and claim irresponsibility, we could only be so lucky if that were the case. The fact is, there is the majority of cases are that of NOT using them. The issue of my objection is that tax money is not a cookie jar for social causes. It has a very specific and limited application, to which has been twisted and manipulated over the years to fund various special interests. It all needs to stop. ALL of it.
It is quite obvious that the liberals expect taxpayers to put up the money for irresponsible behavior no matter how abhorrent it is. I guess this is how they were raised. Do as you wish and let somebody else pick up the pieces. I want to mate with X somebody else pay for me to not impregnate X or if they don't let somebody else pay for an abortion and if not let somebody else pay for them to live by giving me free money to feed and cloth and house them. How dare anybody suggest they pay for it themselves or deny them of mating with X without any responsibility. Idiots.
I am confused here. Is the concept of individual responsibility alien to you?
I refuse to respond to a question impugning my morals. The RW has made a mockery of "personal responsibility".
The OP you responded to was making an argument for personal responsibility and how society has developed a mindset that believes each individuals problem is automatically everyone else and therefore requires the management from everyone and the contribution from everyone to remedy.
It is as simple as that. If someone wants to take precautionary measure be it through birth control or various other means and pay for it through private means, then they are taking the responsibility for such.
As for the percentages, well... I won't state it as fact, but I would bet that his comments are correct. It isn't a stretch to make the claim that he did considering societies direction over the years.
Will you accept the numbers and concede your point if you are shown the numbers? I mean, I only ask out of curiosity as I have seen your arguments before and well... call it intuition, but I don't think the "facts" will make a damn bit of difference in arguing this point to you.
Ditto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt
Proof that more children are being born out of wedlock than ever before you ask?
Excerpt from WIKI, (btw, it's happening all over the world, not just here).
In April 2009, the National Center for Health Statistics announced that nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlockbirths, out of 4.3 million total births, represented a more than 25 percent jump from five years earlier
What about your "more kids in orphanages" assertion. That is what I was really asking about. Sorry I wasn't more clear. BTW, are you familiar with the "orphan trains" of years past, where kids were shipped out of the east coast cities into the midwest to be basically bought by farmers looking for free labor?
What about your "more kids in orphanages" assertion. That is what I was really asking about. Sorry I wasn't more clear. BTW, are you familiar with the "orphan trains" of years past, where kids were shipped out of the east coast cities into the midwest to be basically bought by farmers looking for free labor?
I posted MULTIPLE links to show that more babies are being born to single/unwed mothers and in fact have increased 40% in the U.S.
There are no direct links to those that are orphaned, but one would hazard a guess, that based upon that information, if the number of women who are giving up their babies has remained a constant, that the number of babies orphaned would increase, in fact even if the percentage of women keeping their babies has increased, it would have to be an exponential increase based upon the 40% figure, to effect a decrease in the number of children given up by single moms.
I posted MULTIPLE links to show that more babies are being born to single/unwed mothers and in fact have increased 40% in the U.S.
There are no direct links to those that are orphaned, but one would hazard a guess, that based upon that information, if the number of women who are giving up their babies has remained a constant, that the number of babies orphaned would increase, in fact even if the percentage of women keeping their babies has increased, it would have to be an exponential increase based upon the 40% figure, to effect a decrease in the number of children given up by single moms.
Perhaps you could prove this. In fact, it is damn nigh impossible to adopt a healthy infant in the US b/c so few are available.
Perhaps you could prove this. In fact, it is damn nigh impossible to adopt a healthy infant in the US b/c so few are available.
It is impossible because of A) all the red tape one has to go through and B) states get fed money for kids in foster care. They are making money off keeping the children in foster homes.
Actually it is pretty much black and white. If you have sex, you risk making a baby. That's about as cut and dry/black and white as it gets.
then its pretty much black and white when you drive a car.
If you drive a car, then you risk getting into an accident and getting injured or dying. or that your failure at driving can cause harm to someone else.
Yet, we all don't have a problem when public money is used to hospitalize and take care of the victim(s) in an accident, should the person(s) can not afford to pay their hospital bills.
funny how that works no?
Quote:
1. having sex can result in a baby being made. (I learned this as a young teenager).
and getting into a car can result in my being in an accident. I learned this when I was in driver's ed.
Quote:
2. we are supposed to be better than the animals. Animals do things on instinct, eat, mate, etc etc. Since we are SUPPOSED to be better than the animals, able to reason and rationalize, then we should know what the result of certain actions are. Just because we WANT to have sex, doesn't mean you HAVE to have sex.blahblahblahblah
We are supposed to be better than animals, and follow the rules of the road, since we all have this thing called a brain, but heck, If i happen to oggle a handsome man on the sidewalk and accidentally go through a red light causing a 10 car pile up, which sends me and 4 others to the hospital.
Just because I want to drive, doesn't mean I have to drive.
Quote:
3. Birth control is not 100% EFFECTIVE, not having sex is. (Remember, we ARE supposed to be better than the animals, and we USED to be able to control ourselves).
Driving safely isn't 100% effective, NOT driving is. (Remember we are supposed to be better than animals._
Quote:
4. Planned parenthood is a great idea, and does great work. The caveat to that is, it isn't the government's job to fund them.
then government shouldn't be funding:
The FDA
all hospitals (they do provide funding via medicaid)
all public clinics
All school nurse aids.
all schools in general (because they do teach Sex ed)
why target only Planned Parenthood? They are not the only clinic that provides health services to the public that may include abortion as part of their list of services.
quite hypocritical of all the naysayers in this thread.
Quote:
Remember, the government has no money other than what they receive in taxes. Many people consider most taxes as theft, "In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent."
and those people are ignorant since taxation has been around since the monetary system was developed. Its in our Constitution too.
Quote:
We have pretty much resigned ourselves to this theft of our wages, but many people are truly upset that the money is being used for items not considered a responsibility of the Federal Government.
PSSS. READ the US Constitution. can't be theft if its legal.
Quote:
Have you read the constitution? Financial support by the federal government for things like planned parenthood is simply not there.
PSST. Read the Constitution again, you fail to realize that the CONSTITUTION actually instructs on how regulation and funding is provided. (hint, its a part of the legislative branch of government).
Quote:
5. If you want to support PP, go ahead. Make a donation.
I do. and I also like to see my tax money that I pay from my wages go to public not for profit health clinics. PP is one of many that the government helps to fund. Why only single out PP?
Quote:
Get your local church to hold a bake sale or something. Don't expect your 19 year old working 2 jobs and going to college full time, to be impressed that his/hers taxes are so high because part of them is funding low cost birth control for someone making less than them, but has more time to work. (Yup, have you looked at the the rates for a single person working 50-60 hours a week, making 8-10 bucks an hour ends up being?)
Yes, i've been there and done that. and you know what, its negligible. What 19 year old cares where their taxes are going? Only that they know they get paid next to rock bottom wages.
Low cost birth control leads to less unwanted pregnancies which leads to less people on welfare, which leads to less people seeking public and government funding and waste.
Its a domino effect.
Highest rates of pregnancies in young teenagers? Mid-West who practice "abstinence only" sex education.
Lovely how that is working.
Quote:
The bottom line, it's not my job, or anyone elses to pay for someone elses birth control.
and yo uaren't. Your taxes are.
I dont like the fact that my tax money is paying for a war.
Quote:
There, black and white.
sex is never black and white. and anyone who says this is just a propaganda shilling kook.
then its pretty much black and white when you drive a car.
If you drive a car, then you risk getting into an accident and getting injured or dying. or that your failure at driving can cause harm to someone else.
Yet, we all don't have a problem when public money is used to hospitalize and take care of the victim(s) in an accident, should the person(s) can not afford to pay their hospital bills.
funny how that works no?
Big difference between having intentional sex, and having an unintentional accident.
Quote:
and getting into a car can result in my being in an accident. I learned this when I was in driver's ed.
We are supposed to be better than animals, and follow the rules of the road, since we all have this thing called a brain, but heck, If i happen to oggle a handsome man on the sidewalk and accidentally go through a red light causing a 10 car pile up, which sends me and 4 others to the hospital.
Don't oggle the man, didn't you learn in Drivers Ed, to pay attention to the road and not get distracted?
Quote:
Just because I want to drive, doesn't mean I have to drive.
You are absolutely right, and?
Quote:
Driving safely isn't 100% effective, NOT driving is. (Remember we are supposed to be better than animals._
No argument there, so don't drive.
Quote:
then government shouldn't be funding:
The FDA
all hospitals (they do provide funding via medicaid)
all public clinics
All school nurse aids.
all schools in general (because they do teach Sex ed)
Again, no argument, Schools are a state's issue, the federal government has no business in state schools.
FDA, maybe, Medicaid - maybe, public clinics - no, School nurse - state issue, not a federal school, All schools in general, again, states issue, the federal government has no business sticking their noses in states issues. However this thread is about something else, if you want to discuss other issue, start a new thread.
Quote:
why target only Planned Parenthood? They are not the only clinic that provides health services to the public that may include abortion as part of their list of services.
The federal government shouldn't have their noses in planned parenthood.
Quote:
quite hypocritical of all the naysayers in this thread.
Not really, I have been open and consistent with all my naysaying.
Quote:
and those people are ignorant since taxation has been around since the monetary system was developed. Its in our Constitution too.
You are incorrect. However, in the U.S., initially there was taxes on the sale of alcohol, slaves, sugar, tobacco, auctioned property, and a few other things. The war of 1812 saw a tax on the sale of bullion/gold and silver, jewelry and watches. In 1817, taxes were abolished and the government supported by tarrifs on foreign goods. It wasn't until 1862, to pay for the civil war that a personal income tax was established.
Quote:
PSSS. READ the US Constitution. can't be theft if its legal.
PSSSS Read the definition of the word "Theft"
Quote:
I do. and I also like to see my tax money that I pay from my wages go to public not for profit health clinics. PP is one of many that the government helps to fund. Why only single out PP?
I haven't singled it out and again, my thoughts are well known, and equal across the board.
Quote:
Yes, i've been there and done that. and you know what, its negligible. What 19 year old cares where their taxes are going? Only that they know they get paid next to rock bottom wages.
I know several 19 year olds that were recently complaining bitterly at the amount of taxes they had to pay and how many more hours they had to work to pay for the taxes being taken out. It becomes a huge deal when you are paying your own way.
Quote:
Low cost birth control leads to less unwanted pregnancies which leads to less people on welfare, which leads to less people seeking public and government funding and waste.
Its a domino effect.
Highest rates of pregnancies in young teenagers? Mid-West who practice "abstinence only" sex education.
Lovely how that is working.
Wanna see pregnancy go down. No government help, no section 8, no welfare, and if you have a baby, the man HAS to pay for it's support along with the woman. When people know they will be held responsible for their actions, their actions are altered.
Quote:
and yo uaren't. Your taxes are.
I dont like the fact that my tax money is paying for a war.
sex is never black and white. and anyone who says this is just a propaganda shilling kook.
Taxes are taken out of my paycheck, and when used however miniscule to fund PP and it's operation, then yes, I AM paying for it. \
I don't like paying for the war either, and sex really is black and white, you can choose to, or not to. See how easy that was, at least for me, but then I am able to control MY actions, are you not able to control yours?
It is impossible because of A) all the red tape one has to go through and B) states get fed money for kids in foster care. They are making money off keeping the children in foster homes.
The number of adoptions in the United States peaked in 1970.[45] It is uncertain what caused the subsequent decline. Besides the legalization of artificial birth control methods and abortion, the years of the late 1960s and early 1970s saw a dramatic change in society's view of illegitimacy. In response, family preservation efforts grew[46] so that few children born out of wedlock today are adopted (Refer to Table 1). Ironically, adoption is far more visible and discussed in society today, yet it is less common.[47]
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.
