Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-30-2015, 03:51 PM
 
20,128 posts, read 20,929,615 times
Reputation: 16821

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
Nice - that old trope that has been disproven three days to sunday. next you will be telling me that no, i'm wrong, and that the Sun DOES revolve around the earth 'cause you got proof you watched it RISE!
It's as true as the sky is blue.

Stop staring at the sun it'll make you blind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-30-2015, 03:51 PM
 
Location: NJ
23,597 posts, read 17,279,425 times
Reputation: 17643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Try this reasoning then:

Birth control is a whole lot less expensive than welfare.

Your move.

compliance is the biggest porblem with with drug use.....you have to use it to be effective.

vasectomies would be a good investment as well.

social status in the community has to be revisited by women who desire to join the club, be a mother and get instant status.

lest we not forget the government labrynth which makes children profitable

then we have how many infants aborted with no remorse or consideration.....feeling sorry for the breeders is secondary to lives lost for their convenience.

No one mentions the stratified pregnancies to determine if we are talking accidental pregnancy during teen exploration or career abortion breeder. Mixing the two misses developing a more effective solution.

Let's see how popular Cecil becomes for boys names.

Part of the problem....breakdown of the family, and covert actions encouraged

"If you are a minor (under eighteen years), and you live in the United States, you have rights to confidential reproductive health care. What this means is that unless you consent or give permission to your health care provider, s/he cannot disclose your medical records to anyone, including your parents (except in the case of abortion services, which depends on your particular state's law). Additionally, since no state or federal laws exist at the present time that would prevent minors from obtaining contraception, teens don't need parental consent or notification to get birth control pills, condoms, emergency contraception, and other contraceptive choices.
Even though you don't need consent, if you are on your parent's insurance and/or live at home, it may still be possible that your parents would find out about your appointments or prescriptions. Here are a couple of other things to consider when confidentiality is an issue:
  • If you still live with your parents and you don't want to be contacted at home, talk with a staff member (a receptionist or billing person) about how the office or clinic can reach you.
  • If you are covered by your parents' health insurance and/or they are billed for your medical visits, ask your provider if the diagnosis and treatment on bills sent to them may compromise your confidentiality and how to prevent that from happening.
  • If possible, pay with cash, which is the most secure and private payment method.
  • If you just don't feel comfortable with seeing your regular health care provider, you can visit an adolescent health center or a center such as your local Planned Parenthood. These types of health centers are very familiar with concerns about confidentiality."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2015, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Ohio
15,700 posts, read 17,072,717 times
Reputation: 22092
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
As a somewhat libertarian conservative, I actually favor subsidized birth control (condoms mainly) and feel that high school councilors should be provided with them to distribute to students upon request.

IMHO, it's worth the trade-off.
How many kids would be too embarrassed to go ask their school counselor for a condom?

I think it would be better to put those condom vending machines in the restrooms, male and female. Just charge a quarter to discourage kids from taking them all as a joke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2015, 04:08 PM
 
20,128 posts, read 20,929,615 times
Reputation: 16821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
How many kids would be too embarrassed to go ask their school counselor for a condom?

I think it would be better to put those condom vending machines in the restrooms, male and female. Just charge a quarter to discourage kids from taking them all as a joke.

Then some dope will argue it's encouraging them to have sex.
Like a normal teenager needs to be encouraged to have sex.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2015, 04:15 PM
 
11,755 posts, read 7,135,947 times
Reputation: 8011
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin View Post
I have heard claims going around by some people from the left that birth control should be subsidized so that people on lower incomes can get them to avoid unplanned pregnancy.

As a low-income earner myself, I find this to be utterly laughable.

Condoms are not that expensive. If a person is single, then their most likely method to get laid is by meeting women at clubs or bars, or in some other way have fun during the night. This will probably involve alcohol. Alcohol isn't exactly cheap, so if somebody can afford drinking then buying a condom is a trivial expense. But let's say they are in a relationship. Assuming they have sex 2-3 times a week, a decent sized box of condoms will last 2-3 weeks. So here the expense of condoms gets higher, but not to a point of being crazy expensive. Not to mention that now we have 2 people sharing the cost making it even less of a problem.

I'm sorry, but I just find the idea that poor people can't afford condoms to be utter nonsense. How can they afford booze but not condoms?

I'm sorry but I don't buy into your reasoning.
Magnum XXL is ridiculously expensive, in my experience. 20 of those per week, and you do the math. You know what I am sayin? Of course, you don't.

Mick
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2015, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Iceland
876 posts, read 1,003,132 times
Reputation: 1018
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
Nice - that old trope that has been disproven three days to sunday.
Just like how it has been "disproven" that raising wages with artificial means like the minimum wage causes inflation to happen? Just like it has been "disproven" that flooding nations with immigrants causes worse wages and social issues to happen? Just like it has been "disproven" that anything leftists disagree with in general can possibly be true?


Because, hearing leftists talk about how they have "disproven" things that others say isn't really new to me. There was a time where I would at least listen to what leftists have to say about things even if I knew I wasn't likely to agree with them, because I assumed that even though their opinions were different from mine people were still entitled to disagree and I thought that most people have at least SOMETHING smart to say even if their opinions are different.

I still think that way about moderates. I don't about leftists. Too much bad experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hotkarl View Post
Then some dope will argue it's encouraging them to have sex.
Like a normal teenager needs to be encouraged to have sex.
I think you overestimate how many teenagers actually have sex. The horny teenager isn't as common as we are expected to believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2015, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,587,153 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin View Post
Subsidizing birth control won't accomplish much in terms of preventing unwanted babies.
Not the first time you've been absolutely wrong, I'm sure.

Quote:
And even if it did, why reward stupidity with welfare? If people can't afford to raise their kids because their too dumb then CP should step in.
The GOP refers to it as "family values."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2015, 04:54 PM
 
Location: bold new city of the south
5,821 posts, read 5,310,115 times
Reputation: 7118
Default Why can't "poor" people afford birth control?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000 View Post
Magnum XXL is ridiculously expensive, in my experience. 20 of those per week, and you do the math. You know what I am sayin? Of course, you don't.

Mick
I am sure what you are sayin'. I am not sure what your point is because you never stated one, except maybe that the Magnum XXL was expensive. I don't know what they cost, but a child from birth to 18 cost over a 100,000 dollars, and it's gettin' mo' all the time. Know whut I'm sayin'?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2015, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY 🇺🇸
36,754 posts, read 14,857,135 times
Reputation: 35584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Try this reasoning then:

Birth control is a whole lot less expensive than welfare.

Your move.





It's cheaper to outright purchase homes and cars for them, too. So the "it's less expensive" argument falls flat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2015, 05:12 AM
 
8,061 posts, read 4,895,559 times
Reputation: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin View Post
I have heard claims going around by some people from the left that birth control should be subsidized so that people on lower incomes can get them to avoid unplanned pregnancy.

As a low-income earner myself, I find this to be utterly laughable.

Condoms are not that expensive. If a person is single, then their most likely method to get laid is by meeting women at clubs or bars, or in some other way have fun during the night. This will probably involve alcohol. Alcohol isn't exactly cheap, so if somebody can afford drinking then buying a condom is a trivial expense. But let's say they are in a relationship. Assuming they have sex 2-3 times a week, a decent sized box of condoms will last 2-3 weeks. So here the expense of condoms gets higher, but not to a point of being crazy expensive. Not to mention that now we have 2 people sharing the cost making it even less of a problem.

I'm sorry, but I just find the idea that poor people can't afford condoms to be utter nonsense. How can they afford booze but not condoms?

I'm sorry but I don't buy into your reasoning.
Walmart $2.50for BC Pills!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:22 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top