Free birth control cuts abortion rate dramatically, study finds (premium, education, money)
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.
This all maybe true. However, why are the rest of us being forced to pay for THEIR mistakes? WE have to pay for all the "little darlings" schooling, healthcare, etc. All on the taxpayer dime.
You have them, no matter what your socioeconomic status is, YOU PAY FOR THEM.
That's a lovely stance, and I agree, in an ideal world, that would be the argument to go with. It works for a lot of people. Mostly it works for people that aren't already in poverty and have both parents kicking their butt to get good grades and so on. For the millions in poverty, who's dad isn't around, it doesn't work. We are allowing a situation where the taxpayer will now be paying for all these unwanted babies for their whole lives. Is that better? We need to be proactive on this, not reactive.
I am specifically talking about severely mentally and physically imparired given up for adoption by in the majority of cases, MARRIED couples with other children. I am not talking about Downs kids which the public ONLY thinks about with this. God/mother nature can do far, far worse than that. I worked with many of them.
Your taxes will not just pay for them until 18, because they will NEVER be able to support themselves. They become wards of the state because nobody wants to adopt them and support them for the rest of their lives; some long after their parents themsevels are buried and in their graves. Listen to Rick Santorum, rich man, and how he is going "broke" caring for his daughter, Bella.
Adoption? How about going back to government state asylums where again YOUR tax dollars will be paying for them until their DEATHS?
So many here are all about "love the fetus, hate the child."
They want to make abortion illegal in ALL cases - rape, incest, and in the cases of severely disabled babies like you describe. But when it comes to supporting those babies to adulthood, or in the case of those who can never be self-supporting, for their entire lives, their support ends.
It is obvious that many, if not most or even all, of the posters who have expressed their disapproval about free birth control are being dictated more by their concerns about how much it will cost them than about how many abortions it can prevent.
In most of the abortion threads, these same posters are screaming about "murder" and "killing babies." But when it comes to putting their money where their mouths are in support of an obvious, and apparently effective, solution, all of a sudden all those little lives they claim to want to save aren't so important after all.
IN SCHOOLS, yes, abstinence and educating our children is better than passing out condoms! 14- year-olds need to be focused on education not sex!
Yes, ideally. What happens when, with all good intentions, that doesn't work? (hint: it's never worked) Why not take simple measures to avoid the life long issues introduced, for both the mother and the kid (and taxpayer), that will come when kids get pregnant anyway? Can't we think just a little bit ahead on this one?
The only thing holding us back is that religion says birth control is bad, and all the little followers believe that.
Yes, ideally. What happens when, with all good intentions, that doesn't work? (hint: it's never worked) Why not take simple measures to avoid the life long issues introduced, for both the mother and the kid (and taxpayer), that will come when kids get pregnant anyway? Can't we think just a little bit ahead on this one?
The only thing holding us back is that religion says birth control is bad, and all the little followers believe that.
I am going to have to call you out on this..
You says it's never worked, then WHY DID IT WORK, till the mid 70's?
You says it's never worked, then WHY DID IT WORK, till the mid 70's?
LOL
I was in high school in the very early 70's (I graduated in '72) and I can think of three girls right off the top of my head, even after all these years, who had "appendectomies" in their junior or senior year of high school.
And I'm pretty sure there were more than those three whose names have slipped my mind by now.
I can also remember some "premature" babies - like the one born to the cheerleader and basketball star who got married towards the end of our senior year.
I also had a friend, a year or two younger than myself, who had her first baby at fourteen. She kept the baby, having to get a special allowance so she and her boyfriend could marry before the baby was born.
I had another friend who got pregnant by her boyfriend/neighbor. She was a *good* Catholic girl and her parents would let her boyfriend spend the night, with their daughter and in her bed, but they would make their younger daughter sleep in between them, thinking that would prevent any unplanned grandbabies. True story! I remember that the girl did go stay with an aunt in another town (if I remember correctly) until after the baby was born but did keep the baby. I remember when she returned to school after having the baby and standing in the school hallway looking at pictures she was showing everyone of her new daughter. She ended up marrying a former boyfriend of mine.....after he paid for her to get an abortion because she was pregnant by another guy at the time that they met.
And, honestly, I was probably pretty lucky myself. Thank goodness for Planned Parenthood, although the closest one was more than 80 miles away and a friend and I hitchhiked to get there.
So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it DIDN'T WORK!
Some, though, need to have the obvious spelled out for them.
And it's obvious from some of the posts that a lot of them still don't get it.
I think they get it. But as soon as you suggest a reasonable, workable way to actually prevent abortions, they start thinking of excuses because, at least for some "pro-life" advocates, the real issue is that they don't want women to have sex for any reason other than to procreate. We could sit around all day and discuss why that is: biblical or religious teachings; a belief that women's only role is to be a wife and mother; lack of a personally satisfying sex life; an idea that a woman who enjoys sex is a ****. I don't know. But it comes up over and over.
They'll post for pages about how abortion is killing a baby and you'd think that they'd be willing to try most anything to prevent abortions, but they don't really want that. They're apparently willing to spend millions of dollars to prosecute and incarcerate women who have abortions (which would be the consequence of outlawing abortions) and to care for the children an incarcerated woman would leave behind, but don't want to spend a dime to prevent an abortion.
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.
