Socialized birth control

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I'm talking about freely providing condoms, birth control pills/patch/etc, spermicide, pretty much the whole slew of options available, to anyone who wants it. Maybe even so far as free tubal ligation/vasectomies. What do you think of this idea?
Birth control is cheap, why would you want to subsidize it?
Because people will spend the $40 on cable instead of birth control. Or beer. Cigarettes. Drugs. Gas. Maybe even food. But they'll still have sex, no matter what. Then society bears the cost of unplanned pregnancy, in many ways.
I really doubt such a small subsidy is really going decrease any of these problems. If you are not responsible enough to wrap that rascal for a few dollars, I doubt making it free is going to make these individuals more responsible.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
55,171
7,955
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I'm talking about freely providing condoms, birth control pills/patch/etc, spermicide, pretty much the whole slew of options available, to anyone who wants it. Maybe even so far as free tubal ligation/vasectomies. What do you think of this idea?
Birth control is cheap, why would you want to subsidize it?
Because people will spend the $40 on cable instead of birth control. Or beer. Cigarettes. Drugs. Gas. Maybe even food. But they'll still have sex, no matter what. Then society bears the cost of unplanned pregnancy, in many ways.
I really doubt such a small subsidy is really going decrease any of these problems. If you are not responsible enough to wrap that rascal for a few dollars, I doubt making it free is going to make these individuals more responsible.
The Nuvaring and the patch are incredibly convenient.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
31,700
5,687
126
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: bamacre
The other social programs you speak of are bankrupting our country.

What you all are doing is immoral. Charging massive amounts of money to credit cards and expecting your children and grandchildren to pay for it, with compounding interest.
hahahahaha come on man, you can't be serious, this thread is about whether or not A government should give out free condoms, how can you possibly be trying to twist it like that? This is why people blindly discount everything you say.
You want to pile on more money to an already bankrupt system. It has everything to do with this, and the only ones blind are those who think they will sustain themselves indefinitely with ever increasing lavishes on the backs of others.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
You didn't read either. Find again where the OP mentioned this being a federal program. Read again the post I was quoting which talked about individual credit card debt. Now go back and reform your argument in a relevant form. As a matter of fact, reread every post first. You can do it! I have faith!
 

jackace

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2004
1,307
0
0
Don't think free birth control is going to change a thing with teen pregnancy and such. In most communities there are already plenty of methods for getting free condoms and birth control, but people still choose to not use it.
 

jackace

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2004
1,307
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Ah yes, solving one bad law with another.

Birth control wouldn't be a problem if we stopped giving money to everyone who squirted out a crotch dumpling. That includes tax credits as well as welfare recipients. Eventually the people who couldn't afford to raise their children without the rest of the country paying for it would stop having kids. They wouldn't have a choice. In nature we call it survival of the fittest. Overpopulation is easily solved in nature, I don't understand why humans seem to have such trouble with it. Your genetic ability to procreate does not obligate me to pay for your screaming brat any more than my genetic ability to shit on your front step obligates you to build me a bathroom.
Also wanted to point out I love this post. Made me laugh at how true it really is. No we can't do what he says and call ourselves a 1st world country but its still funny.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: Cairoswordsman
One has to wonder if those in favor of such a proposal (free birth control) are the same people who are all for reforming immigration policy to the tune of legalizing the illegals. Probably the same folks who also support the belief that the US should allow known HIV infected people into the country from other nations.

Yeah, providing free birth control is all about public welfare and the long term cost to our society.....right.
What is free birth control about anyway? Care to explain your position?
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: Deeko
You didn't read either. Find again where the OP mentioned this being a federal program. Read again the post I was quoting which talked about individual credit card debt. Now go back and reform your argument in a relevant form. As a matter of fact, reread every post first. You can do it! I have faith!
No kidding!

I thought that part of logical reasoning was the following....

1) Agree on a general principle/idea
2) Figure out how to get there

It seems that Bamacre goes for #2 and if #2 = any kind of gov't spending #1 is not even considered.

Dumb approach.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,069
499
126
I think the problem here is people believe the current issue is cost. The biggest issue is apathy or a belief structure which wont allow people to use such methods. You can hand them the birth control and they wont use it. So how does making it "free" change that situation?

I'd be much more up for govt funded sterilization if you shit out more kids than you can clearly afford.

 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
Originally posted by: manowar821
zomg socialization of somethings is actually a GOOD thing!

I voted yes.
So where do you draw the line? What shouldn't the government control?
What about personal responsibility??? If you believe in the mantra of
Probably the part where it says 'provide for the general welfare'
wouldn't that include housing, feeding, medical care, clothing???
By accepting socialism you are treading down a slippery slope. I for one don't want to work to support lazy people.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Look at it this way:

Do you want to spend your tax dollars supporting a teen mother on welfare?

Or do you want to spend your tax dollars giving away free condoms and birth control?

I can tell you now, one option is dramatically, shockingly cheaper.
That's the thing, people that support socialized programs in the 1st place supported programs that helped pregnant teen mothers. Your bleeding hearts and "think of the Children" attitude created the mess we are in now. It created generations of people that think by having a kid they can get a check from the government. I say cut them off and let them wither off and die if they can't make it.
Life is about survival of the fittest. Unless you believe in creationism, but that would make you a whack-job like Bush.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: Cairoswordsman
One has to wonder if those in favor of such a proposal (free birth control) are the same people who are all for reforming immigration policy to the tune of legalizing the illegals. Probably the same folks who also support the belief that the US should allow known HIV infected people into the country from other nations.

Yeah, providing free birth control is all about public welfare and the long term cost to our society.....right.
Good one. :)
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Look at it this way:

Do you want to spend your tax dollars supporting a teen mother on welfare?

Or do you want to spend your tax dollars giving away free condoms and birth control?

I can tell you now, one option is dramatically, shockingly cheaper.
False dichotomy. I want to spend my tax dollars on neither. Which, strangely enough, is cheaper than either of the two options you present.

If we stopped giving free support to people who have children they cannot afford, we would have drastically fewer issues with birth control. If people knew that they actually had to support any potential offspring, they would take some responsibility for their own actions.
ZV
Assuming people would take responsibility for their actions- is a bad assumption.
We would be overrun with unwanted children and their crime. Welcome to the third world.
Any savings you got would be eaten up by the need for security.
Hate to break it to you, but welfare babies are the majority of the ones out there causing crime to begin with. You don't really think that the people living in the ghetto that get $700 a month in welfare are spending that $700 on food, rent, Cadillacs, 24" rims, and thug lyfe clothing? They're selling drugs and robbing stores and people to pay for that.

 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
175
106
I support this 100% if not for the simple fact that it will drastically reduce the amount of money spent on government welfare programs, not to mention it will lower the amount of kids stupid people are having so we can avoid Idiocracy.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
Originally posted by: jackace
Don't think free birth control is going to change a thing with teen pregnancy and such. In most communities there are already plenty of methods for getting free condoms and birth control, but people still choose to not use it.
^^^^
You can give these people all the condoms you want, but unless you have a cock monitor attached to everyone you can't make sure they actually use it.
Just like the pill, you can hand them out lik ecandy but you can't make sure the woman is taking them when she is supposed to.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Ah yes, solving one bad law with another.

Birth control wouldn't be a problem if we stopped giving money to everyone who squirted out a crotch dumpling. That includes tax credits as well as welfare recipients. Eventually the people who couldn't afford to raise their children without the rest of the country paying for it would stop having kids. They wouldn't have a choice. In nature we call it survival of the fittest. Overpopulation is easily solved in nature, I don't understand why humans seem to have such trouble with it. Your genetic ability to procreate does not obligate me to pay for your screaming brat any more than my genetic ability to shit on your front step obligates you to build me a bathroom.
Finally a dissenter that used logic to discuss the topic at hand....

I think the benefit to a program such as this is that it's a step in the right direction. Of course in an ideal world we wouldn't need any "child support socialization"....but we can't just go immediately from our current system to that. We just can't, it would lead to chaos and a mass crime wave.

A program that offered free birth control would not only create a much LOWER financial burden than things like welfare/child health insurance programs, it would gradually pave the way to these programs becoming less necessary in general, with less children born into disadvantaged families that don't want to/can't support them.
The problem I have with what you're saying is that it never - ever - works out the way you want it to. In the end, we'll have to pay a higher total cost for both social programs to exist indefinitely. Your grand plan to reduce the cost of the first by preventing pregnancies with the second will not work out, and we'll all end up with two expensive programs to pay for.

This has been the case with every other "step in the right direction" social program to date. They all sound like they will solve the problems of the bigger/older programs, but they never do... and we always end up paying for Yet Another Expensive Social Program (YAESP) while the old ones still drain our wallets just as much.

That said, if you can take the money for this from another program, at no additional cost to the taxpayers, then go for it. If it costs me (Joe Sixpack Taxpayer) a single penny more in taxes, in any form, then no-fucking-thank you.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: ebaycj
You worry about your tax dollars, but a system like this doesn't need to be "for free" (i.e. the tax payer pays for everything).

I would envision a semi-socialized system in which basic forms of birth control (BC Pills / Condoms / etc..) would be provided at cost (read: less than $5, probably more like $2) to everyone. This would cover the cost of the items as well as the admin. overhead, without breaking the bank. The items provided would not be the newest / best / etc. but would be adequate (i.e. only a couple types of condoms, in various sizes. only older/cheaper BC pills.)

There could be some kind of application process if an individual truly couldn't afford these socialized prices.

Also in this case, the "socialized" items available would also not be diametrically opposed to the free market, because people would be willing to pay more $$ for something that is "better" (but not more effective) than what is provided at "socialized" prices. (example: ultra thin / studded / ribbed condoms, or fancy multi-cyclic / multi-hormone BC Pills).
We Already Have That

/thread
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,376
1,284
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: bamacre
If this sounds like a good idea to you, then petition your own state government. Or start up your own private non-profit organization which receives donations and provides birth control products and services to people who want them.

I.e., stop stealing peoples' money.

The mentality that we need the federal government to solve all of our little wants and needs has led us into a fiscal brick wall.

The Federal government is inefficient and corrupt. The Constitution was written specifically to restrain the power of the federal government, and it gives the states and the people authority to do all kinds of things.
I suppose you prefer to pay for medical care, schools, food stamps, roads, and prisons for all of the unwanted children? It's a lot cheaper to pay for birth control.

Kind of like the present day Republican party, which forbids any funds going to family planning organizations that mention abortion, while we are being overrun by illegal Mexican immigrants. Yeah, let's stick to our principles, even if they are completely insane.
Schools, most roads, and prisons are paid for by states.

With your mentality, I wonder why we even have separate states. Why not just combine all the states, cities, towns? Make all laws federal. You people in Marin County shouldn't have a problem living just like us Tennesseans. Right?
Well I have to admit, I never quite understood the importance placed on, frankly quite arbitrary, divisions of government. Obviously we aren't a homogeneous country, and there are concerns that Iowa has that aren't as big a problem in Maryland, but libertarian types always seem to want to have the states do EVERYTHING, for no other reason than it's "local government".

But why that's always desirable to federal government remains a mystery to me. Clearly there are things the states can't (and shouldn't) do by themselves, and it seems to me that things that can happen at the federal level will benefit from not being implemented by 50 different groups of people.
The more localized your government is the better your representation will be.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,175
7,538
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Probably the part where it says 'provide for the general welfare'.
that's a limitation clause on the power to tax, not a general directive. it can tax in order to provide for the general welfare, but not necessarily spend. and general welfare needs to be read with common defense, as the framers were able to demonstrate their ability to properly use commas, and you'll note there isn't one in that phrase.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
If this sounds like a good idea to you, then petition your own state government. Or start up your own private non-profit organization which receives donations and provides birth control products and services to people who want them.

I.e., stop stealing peoples' money.

The mentality that we need the federal government to solve all of our little wants and needs has led us into a fiscal brick wall.

The Federal government is inefficient and corrupt. The Constitution was written specifically to restrain the power of the federal government, and it gives the states and the people authority to do all kinds of things.
This.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
No, I don't support it. A pack of condom's at Target costs like $2.99 for a pack of 15.

If people can't afford condoms, they shouldn't be having sex. They should be out looking for a job.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: bamacre
-snip-
If people are that irresponsible, what makes you think they are responsible enough to actually take advantage of the "free" birth control being offered?

Some women have problems with BC pills. I probably don't have to tell you just how much condoms decrease the amount of sexual pleasure.

You can't force responsibility just like you can't force morality, especially in this situation.
That's what I was thinking.

Condoms are dirt cheap. The cost isn't what stops people from using them; so making them even cheaper isn't the solution to the problem.

Originally posted by: Deeko
You still haven't answered the question. Why are you turning this into a "OMG I HATE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LOL!!111!!!! STOP STEALING MY MONEYZ!" thing, when the OP left it vague as to what level of government is providing the service? "socialized" just means government controlled, it doesn't have to be federal government.
If his point is that he doesn't like this being paid for with others' tax money; no matter what level of government it will still be tax money. Federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax, sales tax or property tax - what's the difference? It all comes out of our pockets.


Originally posted by: Rainsford
-snip-
Well I have to admit, I never quite understood the importance placed on, frankly quite arbitrary, divisions of government. Obviously we aren't a homogeneous country, and there are concerns that Iowa has that aren't as big a problem in Maryland, but libertarian types always seem to want to have the states do EVERYTHING, for no other reason than it's "local government".

But why that's always desirable to federal government remains a mystery to me. Clearly there are things the states can't (and shouldn't) do by themselves, and it seems to me that things that can happen at the federal level will benefit from not being implemented by 50 different groups of people.
Our system of government was initially created to allow for differences in the states. And why not? That way people get what they want, and they get it far easier than trying to persuade the whole of the USA. And, just as importantly, this system was designed to encourage the various states to experiment. That's a very good thing. If one state's policy turns out to have been unsuccessful others can see this and not repeat it. OTOH, if their policy is a success others can adopt it if they choose.

But along came the civil war and we threw the baby out with the bath water. Now we have a system where policy like this is issued by fiat from the central government and it's not much different than having a monarch.

Fern
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Look at it this way:

Do you want to spend your tax dollars supporting a teen mother on welfare?

Or do you want to spend your tax dollars giving away free condoms and birth control?

I can tell you now, one option is dramatically, shockingly cheaper.
That's the thing, people that support socialized programs in the 1st place supported programs that helped pregnant teen mothers. Your bleeding hearts and "think of the Children" attitude created the mess we are in now. It created generations of people that think by having a kid they can get a check from the government. I say cut them off and let them wither off and die if they can't make it.
Life is about survival of the fittest. Unless you believe in creationism, but that would make you a whack-job like Bush.
If you think people are going to wither and die instead of riot and loot, then you are mistake.

Also:
"To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable."
and
"I say cut them off and let them wither off and die if they can't make it. "

Impressive.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Deeko
You still haven't answered the question. Why are you turning this into a "OMG I HATE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LOL!!111!!!! STOP STEALING MY MONEYZ!" thing, when the OP left it vague as to what level of government is providing the service? "socialized" just means government controlled, it doesn't have to be federal government.
If his point is that he doesn't like this being paid for with others' tax money; no matter what level of government it will still be tax money. Federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax, sales tax or property tax - what's the difference? It all comes out of our pockets.
Not wanting this particular program is another issue entirely, but don't tell the libertarians what you just said. Especially don't insinuate that that's what they meant. They might hunt you down and put your head on a stick. They hate federal government programs and want everything controlled by state/local governments.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY