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.
Again.....IN THE REAL WORLD.....this country is not going to let children starve in the streets because their parents are poor.......and IN THE REAL WORLD......you and I are going to be taxed to support those children.
Me.....I would rather pay pennies to provide for the pill than pay thousands to provide for unplanned children.
Can't you see that you are fighting against your own best interests? Why would you want to pay more taxes instead of less?
You are thinking like a micro economist. Think macro.
Your logic circuit must be tired. Some people use Tylenol and some like Ibuprofen and some plain aspirin. They are over the counter and cost pennies.
You work with your doctor to find what works for you then go pay for it. I've advocated national health so that's not a concern. If you have a medical condition we cover the pill. Otherwise pay a few bucks.
We aren't in the 1970's. Irrelevant to the discussion and my suggestion.
No, you said birth control was available for 60 years.
It was not readily available until much later.
Pregnancy is a medical condition.
And birth control is more than a few bucks, especially to those least able to pay out of pocket.
But, you like the idea of breeding sows as stated in your comment about needing women to provide those 2.1 offspring to meet the current model.
Who cares if half of them are drains on the system.
Again.....IN THE REAL WORLD.....this country is not going to let children starve in the streets because their parents are poor.......and IN THE REAL WORLD......you and I are going to be taxed to support those children.
Me.....I would rather pay pennies to provide for the pill than pay thousands to provide for unplanned children.
Can't you see that you are fighting against your own best interests? Why would you want to pay more taxes instead of less?
Cuz it's women.
If men got pregnant, and men held the power, they'd be paying men not to breed.
Paying for the pill is a lot cheaper for insurance companies than paying for a pregnancy and childbirth.
If the insurance company pays less, your premiums will be less.
Again....this will save all of us money.....and that is the bottom line as far as I am concerned.
But that's not the real issue, is it?
The issue is control of women and our reproductive choices.
I think it all boils down to fear of women controlling the world by their ability to breed.
How many men do we really need to keep the population going?
(if that's what they want, not what I would want)
I honestly think it boils down to that.
We control life.
No, you said birth control was available for 60 years.
It was not readily available until much later.
Pregnancy is a medical condition.
And birth control is more than a few bucks, especially to those least able to pay out of pocket.
But, you like the idea of breeding sows as stated in your comment about needing women to provide those 2.1 offspring to meet the current model.
Who cares if half of them are drains on the system.
TrapperJohn isn't worth the time. He's shown that over, and over, again. He'll deny being a bigot; yet, post bigoted comments. He'll deny being racist; yet, imply racial inferiority in his posts. He'll deny not supporting woman's rights; yet, he'll argue that he knows best for their wombs. He really isn't worth the time. He's either unaware of who he is, or he's just trolling.
Then if they can't afford it there are alternatives. I managed never to get pregnant without using the pill, imagine that.
Alternatives that people are less likely to use and that don't work as well as the pill.
The point is......paying for the pill will lower all costs across the board.....and that is what should be important to all of us.
I would rather pay a little for the pill than a lot to support the child.
And....as I have already pointed out.....in this country we will pay to support those children.....whether we like it or not. Good luck trying to change THAT.
TrapperJohn isn't worth the time. He's shown that over, and over, again. He'll deny being a bigot; yet, post bigoted comments. He'll deny being racist; yet, imply racial inferiority in his posts. He'll deny not supporting woman's rights; yet, he'll argue that he knows best for their wombs. He really isn't worth the time. He's either unaware of who he is, or he's just trolling.
And he doesn't know the difference between a good financial plan and a bad one.
And he doesn't know the difference between a good financial plan and a bad one.
TrapperJohn doesn't know a whole lot about being a citizen of a civilization, let alone how to contribute like one.
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.
