Why is birth control coverage such a contentious subject?

[Saritaschihuahua]

Originally Posted by TrapperJohn

Why can't the empowered women and their mate take care of them? Why is my choice "abortion" or "pay for their kids"?

And what do you think the answer to this is? Don't answer stupid, because you know we know you aren't, so don't go there. Answer it with intelligence.

[Saritaschihuahua]

Originally Posted by Ceece

I expect everyone to be responsible but alas, my hope are always dashed. I've come to terms with it and now just want to do whatever I can to make it easier for people not to be a burden to me.

And this is how your epitaph will read:

Here lies Ceecee - who lived for purely selfish, self-absorbed reasons, then dropped dead.

That's it, your philosophy in a nutshell.

[jazzarama]

Originally Posted by TrapperJohn

Define "short-sighted".

Think past this decade. Look 50 or 100 years out and get back with me.

I'm not an age where getting back to you is possible in 50 or 100 years. If you're able to project that far out, good. I'm not.

If this is more of your birth rate stuff, moderate to well-off women don't have the access, financial restraints that limit abortions. # of children is mostly voluntary. The same can't be said for women below or marginally above poverty, the very group that In General produce more takers than providers. So whether short term is 5, 15, 50, 100 years, you should economically be thrilled to subsidize bc and abortion.

[TrapperJohn]

Originally Posted by jazzarama

I'm not an age where getting back to you is possible in 50 or 100 years. If you're able to project that far out, good. I'm not.

If this is more of your birth rate stuff, moderate to well-off women don't have the access, financial restraints that limit abortions. # of children is mostly voluntary. The same can't be said for women below or marginally above poverty, the very group that In General produce more takers than providers. So whether short term is 5, 15, 50, 100 years, you should economically be thrilled to subsidize bc and abortion.

Yet somehow the poorest citizens of the planet manage...

What you really mean is "having kids AND a fantastic life shouldn't just be for the wealthy."

[Ceece]

Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua

And this is how your epitaph will read:

Here lies Ceecee - who lived for purely selfish, self-absorbed reasons, then dropped dead.

That's it, your philosophy in a nutshell.

Really? I see nothing in what I wrote indicating I am selfish or self absorbed. Please point it out to me.

I said people aren't going to always be responsible and I don't want that to be a burden on me. In case you can't figure it out I'm all for birth control for whoever wants it and support it being coverd by insurance because I don't want the burden of a bunch of unwanted kids to fall on me/society. I know peopel are going to have sex wheter they want kids or not, I know people aren't always going to be smart about it and have things all planned out in advance with a backup plan in case things happen. I know pregnancy and womens health IS a medical issue and not some "lalalala natural thing that will always work out for the best".

I am a logical realist, you can put that on my epitaph.

[2mares]

Ok. So we are reviewing health ins. packagae at work as the preimums have gone up substantially. We are a small private company. I noticed among several options there is a pharmacy- contraceptives only -as opposed to the normal pharmacy coverage. The women in our group are post menopausal or have no need to BC. So Im somewhat amused. Come to find out the law mandates contaceptives must be offered, period. I know it isnt much but I have to pay $3.61/mo. if we just wanted to drop the pharm. option because we still have to carry BC pills (it dosent cover IUD or implants).
Where I believe ins. should cover BC as part of their general pharmacy, I think it is crazy that it must be provided as the only pharm. and there is no option to eliminate all pharm. Cant the gov. insert some logic into this?