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.
dear god! How old are you, 105? Clearly you've forgotten what it was like to be young and healthy. INDEED people do have sex without thinking of the consequences at times. If birth control were more readily available, then there would be less pregnancies.
You need to read up on BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVES........it applies to human beings. Your above post is just too full of biases and bigotry to try to address all of them. For some reason the word "ignorant" does come to mind.
Biological imperatives are important to the study of evolution. In order for species to persist, they must by definition reproduce to ensure the continuation of their species. Without reproduction the species ceases to exist. The capacity for reproduction and the drive to do so whenever physiological and environmental conditions allow it are universal among living organisms and are expressed in a multitude of ways by the spectrum of living organisms.
Relationships between potentially conflicting biological imperatives, such as self-preservation and reproduction are similarly resolved in an extraordinary variety of fashions by different organisms, from those who sacrifice themselves to procreate or increase the survival chances of their offspring to those who will abandon their descendants to their own luck when threatened so they may live and successfully procreate another day.
"dear god! How old are you, 105?"
"If birth control were more readily available, then there would be less pregnancies."
How much more available could it be?
High schools give condoms out for FREE.
EVERY drug store in America sells birth control pills and condoms.
"Typical costs:
For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication -- usually $5 to $15 -- and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.
Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. And in some states, it's mandatory"
It doesn't take somebody new to the forum long to figure out what's what and who's who .
In this case, one thread is enough.
Sure it does. There are 1,643,473 members on this site. Politics is one of the busiest topics here. Why in the world would someone who joins up the first day immediately start posting about how "stupid" people are who are members? Only someone who is extremely arrogant, with serious insecurity problems, would do something like that, unless they already were familiar the members and hated people who disagreed with their own political leanings.
"If birth control were more readily available, then there would be less pregnancies."
How much more available could it be?
High schools give condoms out for FREE.
EVERY drug store in America sells birth control pills and condoms.
"Typical costs:
For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication -- usually $5 to $15 -- and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.
Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. And in some states, it's mandatory"
How many folks who need food stamps do you suppose have enough money to buy private health insurance? Additionally, $20 to $50 is a LOT of money to families who financially qualify for food stamps. These people are POOR. Even people who work and have jobs who qualify for food stamps are POOR. Food stamps cover only food. They do not cover things like diapers, personal hygiene products, laundry supplies, housecleaning products, nor any of the other long list of BASIC NECESSITIES people need to survive and maintain somewhat good health!
Why would you think that all these people on food stamps are in high school and qualify for the "free condoms" given out in high schools?
You do realize that most all of the working poor (meaning they have jobs but don't earn enough money to feed their families) qualify for food stamps.
You seem to be thinking in terms of that old stereotype the "welfare queen." Hey, Reagan has been gone for a LONG time now, and in fact, he's dead. Welfare was reformed in 1996, in case you haven't kept up with the times. That was about 17 years ago.
READ AND LEARN A FEW THINGS:
"A new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) looks at cash benefits provided under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, commonly known as "welfare." It finds that the value of monthly cash benefits that make up the fragile safety net for the poorest families with children has continued to decline steadily since the program was "reformed" in 1996. Back then, benefits weren't exactly generous, but they did manage to keep a whole lot of kids out of really deep poverty. Today, those benefits are almost nonexistent. The lucky few who are able to get cash assistance aren't getting enough to pay rent or keep the lights on in most states, and the value of the benefits has declined precipitously since 1996—even more so since the recession started. According to CBPP, there is not a state in the country whose welfare benefits are enough to lift a poor single mother with two kids above 50 percent of the poverty line, or about $9700 a year. In many southern states, TANF doesn't provide enough money to get a poor family much above 10 percent of the poverty line. What's especially troubling about these figures is that, as CBPP reports, TANF benefits are often the only form of cash assistance poor families receive. They may be getting food stamps, which definitely help their situations, but you can't buy diapers or pay the rent with food stamps."
When new posters come on and post in words and content exactly like another poster, well, most of us notice that, and it does look suspicious.
This particular forum is populated, I believe it's clear, by people using multiple screen names and also by people who've been banned for bad behavior and reappear having registered a new screen name. It's seems so very obvious, doesn't it?
How many folks who need food stamps do you suppose have enough money to buy private health insurance? Additionally, $20 to $50 is a LOT of money to families who financially qualify for food stamps. These people are POOR. Even people who work and have jobs who qualify for food stamps are POOR.
Why don't people like that, and like you, move to the European countries that supposedly offer so many benefits?
You could even pay their HIGHLY REGRESSIVE taxes, too, and get what you want:
Mother Jones is not an unbiased source. They are known to be liberal and only have articles to support their side. If you use a source, it should be one based on facts and figures, not opinions that agree with yours alone.
Mother Jones is not an unbiased source. They are known to be liberal and only have articles to support their side. If you use a source, it should be one based on facts and figures, not opinions that agree with yours alone.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a NONPARTISAN research group. How is that liberal?
"A new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) looks at cash benefits provided under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, commonly known as "welfare."It finds that the value of monthly cash benefits that make up the fragile safety net for the poorest families with children has continued to decline steadily since the program was "reformed" in 1996.
The article in Mother Jones was based on that report from CBPP. Btw, so you NEVER, EVER use conservative sources to back up your positions even when those conservative sources use NONPARTISAN reports and numbers?
If you disagree with the findings of the CBPP, then show us which parts you disagree with and substantiate your claim that those findings are incorrect.
So do you want to pay for all 47 million people who receive food stamps to move to Europe? How about you try to come into the 21st Century and work on developing that severely withered compassionate aspect of yourself instead of feeding yourself a steady diet of that "guilt free" personal responsibility mantra which allows people to be proud of being as greedy, selfish, and self absorbed as they want to be.
This particular forum is populated, I believe it's clear, by people using multiple screen names and also by people who've been banned for bad behavior and reappear having registered a new screen name. It's seems so very obvious, doesn't it?
They will survive. It was temporary and now it's gone.
Suck it up like the rest of Americans did when their FICA went back to 6%.
The kids won't starve because the USDA feeds them in school.
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.
