Free birth control cuts abortion rate dramatically, study finds

[nehalem256]

So you are completely fine with children quite literally starving to death in the greatest nation on Earth? Might I ask what religion you are?

You question is irrelevant and completely misleading.

Under my plan there would be far fewer children in poverty.

Liberals are the ones who would rather see children in poverty than tell a woman what to do.

 

[Darwin333]

What is hardwired into our brains? The desire to have sex? The biological impulse to reproduce?

And you say we can indeed control it.

Yes we can "control it" but as the statistics show, we aren't very good at it.

Birth control is already quite affordable. There's no need to mandate it. Taxpayer-subsidized welfare should be for essential needs only.

Sigh.... Ok, if a poor woman accidentally gets pregnant then we have a rather expensive "essential need" that taxpayers will be paying for. Or we can pay for the quite affordable option in the first place and avoid the expensive one altogether. Again, reality is my proof as we are already paying for the expensive option. My goal is to save money and perhaps save a few kids from the cycle of poverty. Your goal is what, to be "fair" or "moral" regardless of how much more it costs us?

If people can control the desire to reproduce, it follows that they are bound to the fruits of the act.

Sure they are but again we simply are not going to allow children to starve. You can talk around this subject all you want but it is absolutely pointless. I am trying to talk about reality and our actual choices not some fantasyland bullshit that you would like to see happen. Reality is we will continue doing things the way we are now, we can either try to minimize the cost or just keep doing what we are doing. You trying to obtain something that isn't obtainable simple leaves us with the status quo. Basically, that makes you part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Completely false choice. There are already multitudes of services, by both public and private entities, provided to the poor so that they may eat.

Yup, and the cost of those public services is exactly what I would like to see minimized with the implementation of this plan. It sounds like you would rather just keep paying them to have kids instead of paying an absurd amount less to help them not have kids we will have to pay for.

 

[Darwin333]

You question is irrelevant and completely misleading.

Under my plan there would be far fewer children in poverty.

Liberals are the ones who would rather see children in poverty than tell a woman what to do.

Right..... Your plan to get a constitutional amendment so that we can force poor women to have taxpayer funded (at least temporarily) abortions...... Gotcha....

The sad part is, I think you are actually serious. I assume you are a republican/conservative and if my assumption is right you couldn't get a handful of people in your own party to vote for it. I have a better chance at becoming pope than your constitutional amendment has of even being introduced.

Again, back to reality....

ETA:

As was pointed out earlier in the thread to bad for men. Not only do they have to pay for their own birth control they don't get extra $$$ for using it.

Personally, I think anyone should be able to walk into planned parenthood or any .gov medical facility and get a box of condoms whenever they want, men included. If at some point a male birth control pill is available I think the same terms should apply as female BC.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes we can "control it" but as the statistics show, we aren't very good at it.

Funny how we seemed to be better at before widespread birth control

Sigh.... Ok, if a poor woman accidentally gets pregnant then we have a rather expensive "essential need" that taxpayers will be paying for. Or we can pay for the quite affordable option in the first place and avoid the expensive one altogether. Again, reality is my proof as we are already paying for the expensive option. My goal is to save money and perhaps save a few kids from the cycle of poverty. Your goal is what, to be "fair" or "moral" regardless of how much more it costs us?

And my plan saves even more money is basically guaranteed to break the cycle of poverty because we choose to not let it continue.

Yup, and the cost of those public services is exactly what I would like to see minimized with the implementation of this plan. It sounds like you would rather just keep paying them to have kids instead of paying an absurd amount less to help them not have kids we will have to pay for.

How is that any different that your view? You want to keep paying for the MINIMUM of 20% of people who purposefully have a child they cannot feed.

 

[nehalem256]

Right..... Your plan to get a constitutional amendment so that we can force poor women to have taxpayer funded (at least temporarily) abortions...... Gotcha....

The sad part is, I think you are actually serious. I assume you are a republican/conservative and if my assumption is right you couldn't get a handful of people in your own party to vote for it. I have a better chance at becoming pope than your constitutional amendment has of even being introduced.

Again, back to reality....

Isn't funny that your whole argument against it is that people won't support it? Maybe if instead of whining that people won't support my idea you started supporting it this would be less of a problem?

And I would also like to see where in the constitution the government is allowed to distribute free birth control?

 

[jackstar7]

And I would also like to see where in the constitution the government is allowed to distribute free birth control?

It's not free! You're paying for it! About $0.04 from you over your lifetime will go to handing out birth control! Where's your RATM t-shirt and bullhorn?!

 

[nehalem256]

Right..... Your plan to get a constitutional amendment so that we can force poor women to have taxpayer funded (at least temporarily) abortions...... Gotcha....

Actually a constitutional amendment is not required

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...t-laws-for-mandatory-immunizations/53110858/1

States have the power to impose medical procedures on people. Mandatory abortions are no different than mandatory vaccines. In fact it is even less troubling as vaccines are imposed on people merely for living. Whereas abortions would only be imposed on people for the choices they make.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You question is irrelevant and completely misleading.

Under my plan there would be far fewer children in poverty.

Liberals are the ones who would rather see children in poverty than tell a woman what to do.

You're a fucking disgrace of a man.

If you're not arguing that you should have the right to rape children you are arguing about removing womens most fundamental rights all together (the right to their own person).

Did your mother ass rape you with an old monochrome video card connector daily or something? It has to have been something that made you hate women so ferociously.

I would rather see you locked up before you decide that society can't tell you you can't rape children and go ahead and do it anyway.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Actually a constitutional amendment is not required

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...t-laws-for-mandatory-immunizations/53110858/1

States have the power to impose medical procedures on people. Mandatory abortions are no different than mandatory vaccines. In fact it is even less troubling as vaccines are imposed on people merely for living. Whereas abortions would only be imposed on people for the choices they make.

You can't seriously be this retarded... it's impossible for someone to be this fucked in the skull and still be able to connect to the internet.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Isn't funny that your whole argument against it is that people won't support it? Maybe if instead of whining that people won't support my idea you started supporting it this would be less of a problem?

And I would also like to see where in the constitution the government is allowed to distribute free birth control?

Anything not explicitly forbidden or implicitly forbidden is allowed. Thus, distributing birth control is allowed.

However, when this clashes with fundamental rights, it IS explicitly forbidden. Thus, no mandatory abortions.

It took me about five seconds to use what i know to understand and articulate that in my head and i am NOT an American, nor have i learned the constitution in any school and yet after all your years and after all those poor teachers trying to teach you something it is still something you cannot understand.

I am not kidding when i tell you that out of all the daft people i've encountered on this forum you are by far the daftest one. Even Lemon Law understands such simple concepts.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You can't seriously be this retarded... it's impossible for someone to be this fucked in the skull and still be able to connect to the internet.

His case workers setup his intarwebz.

 

[nehalem256]

Anything not explicitly forbidden or implicitly forbidden is allowed. Thus, distributing birth control is allowed.

However, when this clashes with fundamental rights, it IS explicitly forbidden. Thus, no mandatory abortions.

It took me about five seconds to use what i know to understand and articulate that in my head and i am NOT an American, nor have i learned the constitution in any school and yet after all your years and after all those poor teachers trying to teach you something it is still something you cannot understand.

I am not kidding when i tell you that out of all the daft people i've encountered on this forum you are by far the daftest one. Even Lemon Law understands such simple concepts.

And as I have demonstrated states have the power to compel medical procedures on people. Abortion is a medical procedure. Therefore states have the power to compel abortions.

What is difficult to understand about this?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

And as I have demonstrated states have the power to compel medical procedures on people. Abortion is a medical procedure. Therefore states have the power to compel abortions.

What is difficult to understand about this?

Wow, the level of stupidity you exhibit is incredible.

Your argument is akin to "police have a right to shoot people to protect the public therefore we should have the police shoot the poor, that is clearly constitutional".

I really don't think you're as stupid as you make yourself out to be, mostly because it's fucking impossible to be that stupid.

 

[nehalem256]

Wow, the level of stupidity you exhibit is incredible.

Your argument is akin to "police have a right to shoot people to protect the public therefore we should have the police shoot the poor, that is clearly constitutional".

I really don't think you're as stupid as you make yourself out to be, mostly because it's fucking impossible to be that stupid.

States have the power to compel medical procedures for the public good (see vaccines). Compelling abortions for poor women is to the public good. No one has to die.

The sad thing is you cannot see a difference between shooting someone and having them swallow a couple of pills

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

His case workers setup his intarwebz.

I honestly think he's mentally challenged in a serious way.

He cannot understand even the simplest concepts such as it being illegal for him to have sex with a child but not illegal for the child to have sex with him and that there is no fucking discrimination involved in that.

He's just FUBAR.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

States have the power to compel medical procedures for the public good (see vaccines). Compelling abortions for poor women is to the public good. No one has to die.

The sad thing is you cannot see a difference between shooting someone and having them swallow a couple of pills

Jesus fucking christ you're a daft wise and beautiful woman.

Mandatory vaccinations are non-invasive and for public safety (like cops killing criminals who threaten the lives of others) while mandatory abortions are invasive procedures that are not made to ensure public safety (like the police shooting the poor).

I have no hopes of you understanding it after i have explained it to you either, you didn't get why you can't rape children after i explained it to you either.

You don't happen to be a great admirer of Islam and Communism, do you? The reason i ask is because you seem to love the ideas of the worst human beings that have ever roamed this planet.

 

[nehalem256]

Mandatory vaccinations are non-invasive and for public safety (like cops killing criminals who threaten the lives of others) while mandatory abortions are invasive procedures that are not made to ensure public safety (like the police shooting the poor).

Since when did swallowing pills become more invasive the injections?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Since when did swallowing pills become more invasive the injections?

First of all, if you're talking about plan B you're not talking about abortions, doesn't matter though, stopping a pregnancy IS more invasive than getting a shot that has no other effect than to stop the you from contracting a disease. Then there is an issue about checking the women to see if they are pregnant, how do you propose we do that? Obviously it has to be done within the time limit for plan B to be a viable option. Perhaps we should have one government employee per poor woman that checks her three days after every sexual encounter?

That is entirely irrelevant though because the reason used for mandatory vaccinations is public safety and it's the ONLY time it's ever been used, to ensure public safety.

 

[nehalem256]

First of all, if you're talking about plan B you're not talking about abortions, doesn't matter though, stopping a pregnancy IS more invasive than getting a shot that has no other effect than to stop the you from contracting a disease. Then there is an issue about checking the women to see if they are pregnant, how do you propose we do that? Obviously it has to be done within the time limit for plan B to be a viable option. Perhaps we should have one government employee per poor woman that checks her three days after every sexual encounter?

That is entirely irrelevant though because the reason used for mandatory vaccinations is public safety and it's the ONLY time it's ever been used, to ensure public safety.

I am talking about RU-486.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I am talking about RU-486.

In that case then YES, it most certainly is more invasive.

No, i'm not going to describe the process to you so that you might understand why, you really need to look it up for yourself before you make the argument.

It is still irrelevant since that isn't the relevant part of the argument.

The argument for mandatory vaccinations is public safety.

 

[zinfamous]

Completely disagree. People aren't machines. They can control themselves, and they should.

We might as well provide for free guns too. People are going to kill each other irrespective of our appeal to the contrary. We may as well make it easy for them.

humans (and all critters that reproduce through sexual reproduction) are born with an imperative to fuck.

no human (or critter) is born with an imperative to buy a gun and shoot another person.

what an odd attempt at comparison....

Aren't we past the era of trying to enforce people to control their nature on a codified, one-size-fits-none policy based on bronze-age stupidity?

 

[nehalem256]

In that case then YES, it most certainly is more invasive.

No, i'm not going to describe the process to you so that you might understand why, you really need to look it up for yourself before you make the argument.

I have looked it up. The effect of RU-486 is basically a heavier than normal period.

And I guess you don't realize the vaccines sometimes have side effects too

It is still irrelevant since that isn't the relevant part of the argument.

The argument for mandatory vaccinations is public safety.

The argument for mandatory abortions is less crime, less child poverty, and lessening demand for strained government resources.

 

[nehalem256]

humans (and all critters that reproduce through sexual reproduction) are born with an imperative to fuck.

And yet you don't see men stripping every attractive woman they see in the street and taking her there. Or women getting naked and presenting themself to every attractive man they see.

Its almost like people are able to control themselves

no human (or critter) is born with an imperative to buy a gun and shoot another person.

Actually if someone pisses you off there is a strong imperative to punch them in the face. Funny how we make that illegal.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I have looked it up. The effect of RU-486 is basically a heavier than normal period.

And I guess you don't realize the vaccines sometimes have side effects too

No, you have not looked it up, you have no idea what Mifepristone might do because they are still discovering complications on a medication that was developed in the 80's. By all means review the studies on pubmed on it and get back to me, there are tenths of thousands of them.

Even a retard like you have to agree that there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between something that protects you from illness and something that actually causes a process in your body that stops pregnancy, causes bleeding, intestinal pain, cramps, possibly infertility and yes, even death.

The argument for mandatory abortions is less crime, less child poverty, and lessening demand for strained government resources.

And you don't understand how a direct threat to public safety and your "this is what could be if we eliminated undesirables from society" argument differ?

If people as fucking stupid as you were to go extinct this world would become a better place in a heartbeat, i'm not for making it mandatory though, i'm just saying that you have a very easy way to improve society right there.

 

[nehalem256]

No, you have not looked it up, you have no idea what Mifepristone might do because they are still discovering complications on a medication that was developed in the 80's. By all means review the studies on pubmed on it and get back to me, there are tenths of thousands of them.

Even a retard like you have to agree that there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between something that protects you from illness and something that actually causes a process in your body that stops pregnancy, causes bleeding, intestinal pain, cramps, possibly infertility and yes, even death.

As liberals like to point out when they come out in favor of abortion; abortion is safer than pregnancy.

Stops pregnancy - yeah that would be the whole point of an abortion huh

Bolded - sounds like a period

possibly infertility - Bolded the important part.

Even death - But far less likely than death from pregnancy.

The amount of liberal double think is incredible. If a woman wants an abortion is a totally safe procedure that is really no different than getting your nails done. If she doesnt want one than it is a horrible invasive procedure

And you don't understand how a direct threat to public safety and your "this is what could be if we eliminated undesirables from society" argument differ?

If people as fucking stupid as you were to go extinct this world would become a better place in a heartbeat, i'm not for making it mandatory though, i'm just saying that you have a very easy way to improve society right there.

I am not eliminating anyone. I am preventing poor women from extorting society for money to support their poor life choices. No one is being eliminated.

And yeah I think eliminating crime fits into that whole public safety thing.