Ma’am Boxer defends Obama Catholic contraception mandate – justified because “It can cost $600 a year for prescription contraceptives.” Yeah, and what does an iPhone data plan or cable TV cost? How about a really bad cocaine habit? Should the Catholic chruch pay for them, too? Ummm, Boxer is a Kleptocrat so we guess we know the answer to that. Forget we asked.
View Comments (115)
I think I can FINISH this. For the pst 30 years, or more, have CONSERVATIVES not been told to STAY OUT of someone else's bedroom?
Does that NOT apply anymore? Because...I really would like to STAY OUT OF SOMEONE ELSE'S BEDROOM....and that INCLUDES PAYING FOR THIER CONDOMS, MORNING-AFTER PILLS....and ABORTIONS.
And I anxiously await the people who start complaining because pork is being taken out of prisons so as not to offend Muslim inmates. Or how about making sure that Muslim organizations hire JEWS...or Christians. I mean, if you can force Catholics...why can't you force Muslims? Or is one protected class more "protected" than others?
The ACLU intervened to make sure some Jewish inmates received kosher meals in prison. So far they have been unheard from on forcing Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives and abortifacients.
The majority of self described Jews are lefties! Catholics are seen as conservative, though many are not.
Sadly, both Judaism and Christianity are felt to be "bad" religions in the eyes of the State. OK to persecute, OK to throw under the bus. The Left does not respect even their fellow travelers that happen to be Jewish -- read Phyllis Chesler for a very sobering look at what kind of naked bigotry is now fashionable. Unless they take on the prescribed self-hatred for daring to have an ancestry and religion that goes back thousands of years, they are persona non grata at lefty events.
Dis is gonna be good for my business. Instant overhead cut! I'll start saving immediately on contraception and abortions! Man I'm callin de Cadillac dealer and orderin an new one right now! Thank you Obama! My man!
I gave you a thumb's up because I hope to hell you're being sarcastic.
Rubbers, condoms, love gloves what ever you want to call them are cheaper than oral contraception and you can get them everywhere these days, just not at the drug store. Why is there not a clause in the health care bill that pays for them?
Because that would put the burden of birth control in the hands of the guys. (@@) No one seems to consider that making oral contraceptive freely available (not recommended in teens medically) does not address the problem of STD's which is much greater even than that of unwanted pregnancies.
There ya go. Responsibility and self respect. That's what's lacking today.
Government policies have taken the consequences out of teen pregnancy, at least the consequences that an ignorant 13 year old girl can foresee. So sure, why not? Someone else will pay for it, right?
I would prefer government spend money to prevent conception in the first place, then to spend money helping to feed/raise an unplanned child
Of course, I'd prefer good parenting prevent conception first. That is the core of my own plan for my children. I don't expect to require government assistance in this regard. My income confers some advantage for my kids here
If that fails in others, maybe intelligently targeted local programs (through schools, etc..). I understand the federalist aspect of this debate. I can buy the Local, then State, and lastly Federal-as-last-resort scheme
I'm a Libertarian. I would prefer that the government not spend the money, period. Not for contraception, abortion, pre-natal care, birth, health care after the birth, welfare, any of that. Put the responsibility back on the responsible party. Let there be consequences to actions.
It would be interesting to try.. I've seen some hardcore libertarian ideas (in a quiz.. i then realized i wasn't as libertarian as i might've guessed years ago). Privatization of all roads? OK, debatable. I could see it working, with resulting inequities. Privatization of Law itself? Whoah.. Does that mean privately owned courts, enforcement, etc..?
I think law enforcement, the courts, etc, is one of the legitimate functions of government. Most of the rest of what government does is not provided for in the Constitution, and with good reason.
If I'm going to be forced to pay for contraception, I think it should be NorPlant, mandatory for everyone that hasn't yet shown themselves to be self sufficient and able to care for a child without assistance. Oh, and married. I truly believe my childhood would have been better if I'd had a decent father figure around. But then, I'm one of those nutty Libertarians, so I'm probably wrong.
I agree with you in theory, but Norplant is not medically appropriate in teens. But I absolutely get your meaning.
I wish BwaBra Boxers parents had been a little more liberal in their use of birth control...if you know what I mean...Hey maybe under Obamacare we can make Abortion retroactive...would solve a lot of our liberal problems.
Maybe we could have a 1400 trimester retroactive abortion?
Do senators have to pledge an oath to the Constitution?
No if you are liberal you wipe with it.
They have the Constitution printed on little 4" squares of tissue paper, all rolled up nice and pretty, hanging on the walls of the Congressional bathrooms. You'd think they'd read it on occasion, when they forgot to bring Alinsky's book.
It is simple. It looks like we must pay to facilitate recreational sex. The implied threat is or else "we" will saddle "you" with the costs of unwanted pregnancies or the tragedy of aborted babies. Mind boggling that we got to this point but here we are!
So for moral people or religious people the choices are clear: pay for recreational sex OR pay for abortion OR pay for assistance to Mothers and their children who were unwanted.
Uhm... this is so one-sided. Why not make it EASIER for TRUE charitable foundations, community organizations and churches/temples to provide for those in need? Punish those who take advantage but otherwise do not mandate anything for anyone to do. I mean it is not that hard. MOST PEOPLE are charitable and MOST PEOPLE do care for other people. Government doesn't care for people more than I care for people I can assure anyone of that. I am sure there are millions of people like me. Even if there are people that for whatever reason cannot have a helping hand and they NEED government assistance, even if it is due to their own wrong choices, instead of giving them a fish perhaps they can be taught to fish? I mean is this a new idea tht I just came up with? Because if it is I deserve a nobel peace prize yo...
Why do I have to pay for other people having sex? Gross. That's nasty. People want to have sex and not get pregnant... well don't have sex or get the contraception yourselves! I mean come on how is this happening that we got to a point where OTHERS have to pay for OTHER people sexual lusts? That is disgusting! This world needs to end and soon.
I would add tax payers to your first sentence in addition to moral or religious people. Recreational sex will become a right the way we are going.
Instilling a little morality in children could go a long way towards reducing the problem, but we can't be forcing parents to do that since it is a government job!
That's an interesting way to look at it.
Sex can be little more than fun, hence its recreational. The kitties are doing it too, so we trap and sterilize them and put them back (killing them just stresses the clans who tend to push out bigger litters). I don't know if they are having fun though.
I tend to place Sex more in the Instinctive or Unstoppable category, rather then merely Recreational. We're pretty wired for it, like multitudes of species. Bowling is Recreational--I'm not hardwired to seek it out. It takes the most rigorous control to contemplate sexual celibacy (our most successful examples being either communalist or somehow susceptable to deviations under the trappings of clergy).
Telling teens to be abstinent is pretty much a joke. Does anyone seriously think that works? In the past, we just forced them to marry.. and oh they married young. Nowadays... ain't gonna happen here.
If you can't force the pregnant into marriage arrangements, as traditionally has been possible in the past, then you've got inevitable costs. What's more expensive in the long run?
Yeah, the animals do it to reproduce-exclusively. In people, it has (or should have) a deeper meaning, and may not always be intended for reproduction (if it were, all the issues about gays would be moot.) But people are supposed to be a little more advanced than the animals, to delay gratification, plan ahead, etc.
The animals also can't be expected to understand the future ramifications of their actions. They just do what their hormones tell them. People are supposed to be smarter than that.
You both said people are "supposed" to.. This sounds like some tacit acknowledgement that its not happening how its supposed to happen.
I say some teens are really really foolish, dumb, or screwed by circumstances, and will engage in risky baby-making behavior. Its the nature of the beast (with 2 backs..)
Its also worth noting that these hormones are far more ancient than the evolution of human rationality. And they are delivered into the body long before teen brains have completed construction of their prefontal cortex, which guides self-control and modeling of consequences. You essentially have creatures designed for reproduction, and without proper guidance, they will fall into the same patterns over and over, regardless of time or place
That assumes these kidsa are completly controlled by their hormones. I say they don't have to be, and millions of teens who never got pregnant back that up. While decision making is not optimal at this age, a zillion teens manage everyday. The unwanted pregnancies, while on the rise, are not the majority.
I really don't assume *complete control*, and am hard pressed to see where I might've misspoke, but apologize if I had
I merely suggest it is a strong trigger of behavior amongst numerous triggers. Foresight based on increasingly accurate modeling of consequences produces counter-triggers. The human brain possesses some components far better suited to foresight than others, and some of them aren't done growing till adulthood. We compensate through good parenting and guidance
In the aggregate, you will always have a certain subset of teens who engage in sex. Some of them will use birth control or method and avoid pregnancy. Others will screw it up, by virtue of several factors: lack of birth control, lack of education, or lack of willpower.
The net effect of a number of unplanned babies is almost certainly worse then a similar number of planned babies. This *is* an assumption i make.
And I'm not suggesting some liberal abortion policy here.. My markers have always been around the "fetus" and/or the first trimester, which is actually more strict then some of the recent state laws that have been proposed to great opposition. But i'll concede, and say No Abortions, for sake of this argument, because I'm really just talking about availability of birth control here
But why provide free birth control when the people involved will likely not use it? Then we have all the current costs of unplanned pregnancies, and a huge bill for contraceptives as well. Those who don't have enough sense to not engage in pregnancy producing sexual acts will likely not have enough sense to properly utilize birth control, especially if they don't pay for it and therefore do not have any stake in the cost.
The natural process of selection has been usurped by the nanny state, so nature doesn't have the desired effect of keeping the population under control any more. Now we have to use intelligence.
hmm my smarter than average bear got detached.. i meant to attach that to another comment you made, regarding saving up for a baby-prevention procedure (ouch?)
I haven't run across very many other people who had the procedure at age 20 like I did. Whether that was being smart, I don't know. But I made a decision about what was right for me, and I followed through with it, and I have never regretted it. No little Lesters running around.
I do feel it was a responsible thing to do though. I've had many people tell me that I would have made a great Dad, and I agree. I understand the responsibility, and I would absolutely be a devoted and loving parent to any children that I may have had. I just decided that taking on that responsibility wasn't for me. I love kids, just don't want any of my own.
you're probably smarter than the average bear
Alien:"Telling teens to be abstinent is pretty much a joke. Does anyone seriously think that works?"
I'm not saying the majority of teens in this country aren't eventually having sex. But even the minority who aren't represent millions and tens of millions of people. How can it be said something is impossible for young people, self-control, when so many are exercising self-control? I would go so far as to to say that the majority of women who married in this country in the middle part of the last century were virgins when they married. So why is it now though to be impossible? I ascribe it to media/entertainment/educational/liberal brainwashing. I agree with perlcat's sentiment that human beings aren't animals and can practice self-control.
I'm not talking about individuals.. Sex drive is unstoppable in the aggregate. Of course individuals and outliers may push back against it. Everyone has a story about how they resisted and succumbed.
Chronic stressors trigger greater hormones in youth. Poverty and broken homes are stressors. Mitigating some of the consequences through birth control is cost-effective at some point (the math of which i have not engaged in)
I am sorry but your argument is fallacious. The "aggregate" is formed with individuals. Sex drive is not unstoppable for those that control themselves like humans beings should. By your argument then we have to then accept pedophiles as normal part of our societies and allow them to rape our children whenever the sex drive happens as it is unstoppable right? Also not "everyone" has a story on how they resisted and succumbed. Perhaps you have such a story, perhaps others have similar stories, but others do not. It is not easy perhaps for all people to choose to not "succumb" to sexual drive, but it is not impossible.
By your post I would have been a prime example of a ho as a child/teen. Do you have a study behind this? My Father was an abusing jerk, whom my Mother divorced and we were poor for many years. Lo and behold I wasn't a teen ho. The story is it the same for many others. It is not that the opportunities weren't there. Thankfully family, church and a desire to not be a teen ho were very important parts of my decision not to be a teen ho. It was a decision that everyone can make.
This ENTIRE discussion though STILL to this day does nothing to tell me WHY I have to pay for other's decisions?
I was raised in a home much like Kimmy's, and have never fathered any children.
The "aggregate" argument only works in socialist societies, where there is no individual.
I use aggregate as mathematical/data construct. I don't know the socialist context (aggregate==collective, you are thinking?)
In the same vein, I might say that Crime is unstoppable in the Aggregate. Individuals may chart a course to avoid it, but not every individual will. Even though each individual should bear sufficient personal responsibility to avoid Crime, some won't (as either perpetrators or victims)
So, we all must deal with the consequences, and seek various ways to mitigate.. Even the notion of a municipal police force is relatively young (and riddled with corruption in early days)
The same goes for Sex Crime, or Sex Business (prostitution), or Procreative Recreation amongst unworthy individuals. You'll never stop it all, so we debate about how to mitigate, and what exactly are the nature of the consequences.
So under you comparison, are we also responible for those who commit crime? THey only followed their natural instinct, and their brains were not developed enough to make good decisions? Of course not! At least I hope not! We are not denying that some people act out. We are simply saying it is not our job to enable their behavior.
Sa-Rose is correct. Where does it stop? I agree with Flash this has socialistic connotations. There is too much "corporate sacrifice" and class warfare in this discourse. Because others commit crimes and I didn't do anything about it, I am responsible? Excuse me? How does this make any sense? Someone commits a crime in another state or country, and because I failed to act in making sure that I paid for the Mother's abortion or contraception in order for her to avoid having that one specific criminal child, I am to blame? I cannot possible take on that load. With six billion on Earth and who knows how many of those are gross, I can't possibly take on that responsibility. I will go insane! I would have to be G-d in order to deal with the emotional pressure of it all. Even G-d Himself is not at fault for this person's behavior because He make sure that EVERYONE knows EXACTLY what HIS STANDARDS of behaviors are. If everyone were to at the very least follow 50% to 75% of His standards of behaviors we would not see the world in the state that it is now. There would still be evil people, but more people would be more responsible which is a good thing. It is the people's lack of discipline and their lawlessness and evil doing that is at fault not me and definelty not the Lawgiver and those who seek to follow His laws AND/OR the laws of the land that are meant to keep everyone safe.
I'm not saying we should enable criminal behavior at all. I used Crime as an example of a phenomenon that is essentially unstoppable in the Aggregate (simply to flesh out my continued reach for crutch of aggregation..)
But in that vein, we are still collectively responsible for dealing with the consequences of crime. Either that resides in the public sphere, purely private, or a mixture of both. Part of dealing with crime involves prevention
When I say we are responsible for it, i'm not saying you or any of us are to blame.
No. Not to blame and definetly not responsible. Collective responsibility for others is too "brother's keeper" Obama crap. Sorry I completely disagree. Also you must realize that you are asking for us to control the lives of others, that is IMPOSSIBLE. No government nor even private agency has that power. If my G-d can manage to decide that everyone has Free Will, there is no person on Earth that can take that away from another. Things will happen. Life will happen and consequences will happen. I nor you nor anyone should be compelled to bare the burden of another person it is supposed to be voluntary.
"By your argument then we have to then accept pedophiles as normal part of our societies and allow them to rape our children whenever the sex drive happens as it is unstoppable right?"
uhh.. no. I would tear any such fool limb-from-limb who touched my children. I would go to prison for it
I would just like to point out that there is an awfully large desert out there, and if they don't find the body, they can't prove the crime.
So true. And in Texas (which is a VERY large state) there is a whole lot of nothing out west.
But you still can't stumble on drug money while hunting, out in West Texas, and get gone with it.. poor poor Josh Brolin
I think the statement "you can't cheat an honest man" still holds true, but there's a corollary to it: "Government never met an honest man they wouldn't mind screwing."
I would to. I don't care if this is something innate that they have to deal with. Just because they want to have sex with children, it doesn't make it okay and therefore I will kill anyone who dared do anything to my children (if I had them). Pedophiles are disgusting and organizations like NAMBLA that claim that children have sex drives and they are sexual beings so it is okay for adults to be with them should be bombed. That is why I don't buy the we cannot control ourselves mentality. We can and should especially if it is criminal or disastrous.
That is a fallacy! Not all unwanted pregnancies occur in poor and/or broken homes! If these kids are smart enough to work their computers, they are smart enough to not have pregnancy producing sex. Look at all the teens that make it though the hormone storm of adolescence WITHOUT getting pregnat (or gettin g someone else pregnant!)
It is a fallacy, I agree, and also not my statement. I'm just talking about tendencies. Many teens need to be guided through this stuff: that's why we have laws to protect them, and that's why those of us who seek to be better parents do what we do
When those guidance systems break down, we all suffer the results
What about the teens that ARE abstinent? Are they insane? Or are they just civilized? And it's not a meager percentage; for 15-17 year olds it's the majority.
"Unstoppable"? Absurd. Killing people who get in your way is also instinctual. Civilized people can easily stop themselves and the people who can't must face the consequences.
I wasn't insane for being abstinent as a child. In fact seeing girls getting pregnant left and right and looking used up and messed up was not attractive. I am glad I was was abstinent it IS doable. Boys may have wanted to get with this, but unless they had a trust and willing to put a ring on this, they were not getting it. No little boy in no high school was worth it. It is too bad a lot of young women and girls do not have the sufficient self esteem, but that is another issue and still not my fault and still not my responsibility to pay for their decisions.
I think you hit it on the head right there, Kimmy. Self esteem. And the lack of it.
I'm glad you saw yourself as being valuable enough to protect, and not jump into the back seat with just anyone. When I see some of the guys that these girls are getting knocked up by, it sickens me.
Show a little respect for yourselves, girls.
That's right. Another thing with me is that I knew I wasn't going to stay a child forever. I wanted a different life from ancestors and peers who gave up their innocence and their lives so easily for nothing or else for someone to love but that they are not capable to take care of. It seems like a stupid thing to realize, but interestingly enough a lot of these teens do not think ahead in time. They are stuck in the present and that is another reason for their stupidity. Still not my fault, if I could figure it out, so could they and even without a Father in my life and all the sad stories that I can relate. To me G-d was essential, so was family and so was looking around and seeing the reality for what it was. To others it could be something else, but people can and should figure it out and act accordingly.
You have a strong killing instinct?
Its a matter of degrees.. Teen bodies are not flooded with killing hormones. In evolutionary terms, killing other humans is only partially effective. Replication of DNA, however, is paramount, in virtually every species. That means sex, which is often hard to get, for many, and extremely opportunistic in execution. Its mechanisms override younger neural systems dedicated to rationality and consequences. Compound with mind altering substances and stir.
Maybe breathing, eating, and speech are less stoppable. But sexuality ranks up there, and the traditional institutions of the past which helped contain it simply don't hold muster anymore
All of this is means nothing to me, as it is still not my responsibility that a person cannot control themselves, when I COULD AND MANY OF MY ACQUAINTANCES under the same circumstances as me could. If I could control myself, others can too. It is no MY responsibility to take care of them when they acted like instictual animals and not like human beings. You are making a non-point, because you are defending sexual decisions, but you are not proposing WHY I have to pay for others sexual decisions.
I voluntarily laid myself down on the table at the age of 20, and had my reproductive capabilities reduced to pretty much zero. I thought then, as I do now, that it was the responsible thing to do. I've never regretted that decision.
I had my money that I had saved up to pay for it with me, and was surprised to learn that my insurance had already paid for it. If I can do it, why can't anyone else do it?
I want children so that is an extreme thing that I won't do. However if people want to do it, that is their prerogative. I am capable of controlling myself amongst men and not jump on their laps whenever I see one that I like. I am not an animal and this body is not a trash receptacle. I wish more women and men would see themselves (and others) as precious and not as trash. Overall if women and men want to do what you did or just simply find ways to be celibate until they are well and ready to have children and what not, they can, we all can for sure.
The big problem these days, Kimmy, is that doctors pretty much refuse to perform vasectomies on any man that hasn't already fathered a few kids, and is getting up there in years. Even back in '77 when I had it done, it was very difficult to find a doctor that would do it for a 20 year old who had no kids. An abortionist would have been easy enough to find, but if somebody wants to act in a responsible manner, they turn you away.
That is terrible. A man can drag a girl, even a girl he legally raped to get an abortion and there is no problem. Disgusting.
Actually, they HAVE sued tatoo parlors! But again, no one wants to accept responsibility for their actions anymore. Its all the fault of Mommy and Daddy, the School System, the Government, the society blah blah blah
It's our lawsuit happy society. If I made this decision, it's because I meant to do it, and am prepared to live with the consequences. If a young woman does it, and later changes her mind, the doctor pays because of the "Why wouldn't he stop me from doing stupid things to my own body" whine.
Never mind that nobody sues tattoo parlors or other places where people do stupid things to their bodies -- the doctor has deep pockets.
True. Same with women wanting tubals. They get a lot of crap about "you;re too young" and "you may change your mind later."
I disbelieve that teens are such slaves to their hormones. I've raised teens. Yes, hormones are strong, but they are not animals -- they are people.
I helped my boys get a job at a factory. It was hot, brutal work. They made OK money. About mid-summer, I was talking with them about their job, and we were discussing how hot it was, and how hard they were working, and also their co-workers. I asked them how many of the people who were there on the factory floor, in an unskilled labor job, were in their forties. They said about a dozen.
I told my sons to ask them why they were working such a hot job in their forties, and if they were happy with their life. They did, and every single one of them had the same story: "I didn't mean to spend my life here. I had all kinds of plans, but I knocked some girl up, and here I am, twenty years after. I'm not happy with my life -- If I had the choice, I'd have never married her, as we really don't have all that much in common."
Then I taught them a simple poem to help them remember what they needed to do to get a better life. It goes like this:
No glove;
No love.
They both finished college, one is an engineer, and the other is an accountant, and they both make good money. Very proud of them.
I would be proud too, you've done very well with your sons. I hope they are proud of you, as well, and recognize their good fortune. They placed high in the parental lottery, unlike many others. Its About the Children, man..
I don't really know how to stop shitty parenting, but in the aggregate it does have its consequences, and I'm not ready to let it lie
Just keep in mind shitty parenting is not always the problem behind unwated pregnancy, teen or otherwise.
That is totally true. I'm not saying that any one thing is always a factor here. Teen alcoholism is also another factor. There are most assuredly 100 others i haven't mentioned, because i just don't have time.
When I finished my freshman year of college my father sent me over to spend the summer in China with my brother who had moved there to learn the language before he went to graduate school. We spent the entire summer backpacking through Asia...and the one piece of advice my father gave me for all that, which included Hong Kong, Bangkok and many other major cities where you can get into a bunch of trouble was.....
"flys spread disease, keep yours closed"
I will always remember that.
An old saying: "Girls play at sex to get love. Guys play at love to get sex." Who do you think gets the short end of the stick here?
Usually, the losers are the people that can't keep their hormones under control, and anyone unfortunate enough to be around them when they're making rash decisions.
I think the best saying is: "A girl wants a wedding. A woman wants a marriage."
Good job, PC. I wish I'd had somebody in my life to give a little guidance when I was a kid.
Yeah, I just gave them the advice I wished I'd had. Seems to work pretty well.
None of that makes it MY responsiblity.
Not your responsibility.. Ours
When you visit my city with your Rocking Horse, am I responsible for your protection in city parks (or wherever you may attend..)?
If a million unwed teenage girls have unplanned children into miserable circumstances of poverty, is that a net gain or loss for the country? At some point, we bear varying degrees of responsibility for their broken-home baby making. By responsibility, i don't mean causality, but merely that we must deal with it. Some portion of them will end up on the dole. Others will engage in criminal behavior. Both eventual burdens on social welfare and law enforcement seem pricey, compared to a little prevention
Alien, I pay for that protection. No, irresponsible sexual behavior is NOT our responsibility unless we engage in it ourselves. Period.
Police protection on city parks is a good thing for all the public. That argument doesn't make any sense.
Taking responsibility for those that for WHATEVER REASON decided to act on instinct and got pregnant is not "our" responsibility not at first and not ultimately. There are always things that may happen, things like incest or rape that merits help when everything else fails (family and so on), however THANKFULLY the majority of those that get pregnant are willing participants in the activity that got them there. So no, we are not responsible, they are. That is the point.
My contention is that preventing some number of unwanted or unplanned pregnancies *is* good for the public. At the very least, it must be less expensive for us all.
If a million unplanned babies give rise to 20,000 criminals, that's a cost WE must all bear. I gotta pay taxes for Law Enforcement and Corrections..
We can mess with the formulation, but some thresholds must exist where X dollars in publicly funded birth control and education, provided for Y number of very poor citizens, saves us Z in cash money. We can even remove/ban abortion as a strategy completely--doesn't hurt my argument
Alien you are working on the assumptions that 1) unwanted pregnancies are all in teen moms and 2) that only the poor have unwanted pregnancy. Both assumptions are incorrect.
I think the problem can be summed up like this: People who do not think tend to create more people who do not think. They write a check with their bodies that society at large is forced to cash. Our entire culture is currently glorifying thoughtless fools.
The answer is to get them to think. There are ways, but it takes a lot more involvement on a lot closer level than a government agency is capable of, or even should be allowed to. If you want government to do it, they actually need to get right down into the micromanagement of life, telling kids what is "right", and what is "wrong".
That is a very simple summation of religious or moral upbringing. Kids can have all the self-esteem they want, but if they do not have the morals, they're pretty much doomed to failure. Not that this moral instruction does NOT have to be religious, but religion, can provide a pre-made framework -- where 90% of the "I think, therefore I am" philosophizing parts is already done.
I know, for example, numerous agnostics who raise kids just fine -- but, like with any situation, there are also agnostics who take their position simply by virtue of not thinking about these issues. Not so sure I'd want to entrust this to just anybody.
With Brand 'X' Religion(1), I at least *know* what they say, and can look at their history in order to decide if their take on things works for my family.
(1) I'm being very meta here...
I don't assume that ALL unwanted pregnancies are amongst poor teens. I try not to say ALL under any circumstance
These are just scenarios that loom large in my mind, for whatever reason. I've seen studies that show outcomes for single teen mothers are much worse than the usual population (in terms of education, income), and this relative decline in outcome is seen regardless of the teen's originating income/class.
Couple that with decreasing class mobility, and I figure a little prevention is a wise move overall
Your argument is based on a possibly erroneous assumption that unwanted pregnancies ultimately leads to a majority of criminal activity. Do you have a study? Because I know many who were born out of situation of unwanted pregnancies and they are aren't criminals. I believe that being a criminal out of that situation may not be THE NORM (thankfully) rather the exception, but sadly it is what the media would focus on.
You need to come up with solid and verifiable and long term numbers here. In a span of 20 years, 50-100 K or more women/girls giving birth to unwanted babies what is a percentage of those that actually end up in prison and/or committing crimes? I think that it is a low estimation on humanity ability to choose the correct path that guides your argument. Although humans do have the ability to be evil, there is really no reason (as of this moment) to believe that all or even most unwanted pregnancies leads to problems of criminality for us. However, even in the cases where they do, I still dont have to pay for their contraception in order to avoid it. They are still responsible for their actions not me. If I want to voluntarily help associations or charities that helps dispense these to people that is a choice for me to take, not a choice for the government to do for me.
Don't confuse me with people who think you're responsible for anything other than your own actions, Kimmy. I was stating a fact, that single moms produce more criminals than stable homes do. I'm not letting anyone off the hook for their actions. I'm tired of paying for other people's mistakes. I have enough trouble paying for my own.
RHG (Flash), okay fine but that still doesn't tell me why I must pay for people's consequences. It tells me that I can consider being charitable, mentoring children and young women, joining associations to help them, etc. However I should not be compelled through government to pay for their actions and consequences. Governments should not be in the charity business. They should be in the defense biz, in the infrastructure (for all) biz, safety in the food and medicine that the public will ingest, prosecution of evil doers and what not.
Alien in all reality what we know is this: people can choose their lives accordingly. We cannot control others we can only control ourselves. Even if criminality and other issues may arise out of situations, that still does not mean that I am compelled or should be compelled through taxation and other things to pay for the actions of others. However, we can be asked to be charitable and lend a helping hand to women/girls (and men/boys) in this situation inorder to avoid as much as possible these consequences. Whatever happened to Boys and Girls Scouts and Clubs and parenting and mentorship and apprecentiship programs and what nots? Again your arguments do not tell me WHY I must take responsibility for actions done by others nor do they tell me why I must pay for their consequences? If it is about criminality I can get a gun, learn how to use it and use it when or if needed (and/or take self defense classes as well as be able to call 911), as for other issues like people going on the dole it all goes back to personal responsibility and the role of family, friends, community, churches and charities in society and how the govt should not supplant those things.
Yes, that has been proven. I don't have the time to look it up right now, but Google will show anyone that doubts it that MANY more criminals come from single mothers than from a healthy family.
I agree.. i will try to find some harder numbers on that. I only have time for pure BS right now, not research :)
I am totally assuming that unplanned children born into relative poverty tend to bear higher costs down the line (not only due to increased criminal activity, but also being more likely to end up in government dependency cycles, etc..)
That completely eliminates the idea pof personal responsibility. Do I think that some will still end up pregnant? Yes. And even with birth control provided, some will end up pregnant, because they forgot their pills, or didn't like the side effects fromtheir implanted device, or its not romantic to use a condom, or they didn't get their pills refilled. . . . . . And many of those girls are not FROM broken homes, they are from relatively stable middle class homes, n\but mommy and daddy cut them off when they were stupid enough to get pregnant. Talk to unwed teen moms. Most knew very well what they were doing. Based oin a fantasy of course, but they WANTED to get pregnant; to prove something to parents, to hold on to their boyfriend, to have something "mine" that will love them forever. THis is not the 50's. These are not kids who simply stumbled into pregnancy. And I suspect if the guys were held to a stronger standard the whole thing would be better as well. After all, he can walk away! That is improving somewhat, but not at the level of convincing them to delay gratification and NOT SCREW EACH OTHER!
i agree with you.. many guys are complete pricks.. the traditions that tended to guide them towards the Noble Thing have certainly frayed.
Maybe the fantasy-addled brains of some teen moms led them to desire to get pregnant. This is failure of modeling of consequences, which should be reality-based. These little moms will tend more towards poverty and lack-of-education then their non-mom peers. I have to help prop up the systems that deal with these consequences with me tax monies
This still doesn't tell me why I have to pay for other people's personal business. I am not responsible for the actions of others, nor should I be made to be. I shouldn't have to pay for other people's actions, misactions or consequences of their actions. I certainly wouldn't want my actions and consequences to affect people that don't know me.
If a girl decides that she is ready for sex and telling her to use condoms and what nots she goes ahead and does not use them because she cannot afford them or it is not satisfying for her or whatever, then telling her to use it in the first place was a joke as well right? Oh so the solution is then to have ME and others pay for her to get the condoms? What? What shall we do with the freaks that can afford them but do not want to use them anyway? I have to pay for her abortions or childcare? What? Why should I have to pay for that? It would have been cheaper for her not to have sex or to wait to get a J-O-B that pays REAL $$$$ that she can use to do what she wants to do. Why am I her bank? How is that fair to me? I am not her Mother. I could have told her to wait until she got a job or to not have sex to begin with. I don't have to be responsible for her decisions.
If the government made its OWN money and didn't ask for MY MONEY to pay for ITS DEBT then we will have an entirely different conversation. However the govt does not make its own money, it is all on us that pay taxes to pay for other people's mistakes and actions. That is not equitable and it in unjust. I prefer for charitable giving to be in the hands of those that can be charitable as they do not expect anything in return (votes for example) and can TRULY teach people to be self-sufficient and also support families so they can support one other. Being hardwired to have sex is not an excuse for me to pay for a guy's or a woman's lusts. If you disagree, you can pay for it, but it should be voluntary not through compulsion and not through taxes which are meant for other things.
In terms of a cost to society, yes, we are ahead to stop unwanted pregnancies, and pre-conception is the best place, whether that be through abstinence or other devices/medicines. However, there are people who have a profound religious problem with it -- and they shouldn't have to pay for it, whether that's in taxes or in private insurance.
The issue is so emotionally charged, that nobody is going to come up with a fair discussion. For example, society might be better off to pay bounties for sterilization -- and to provide bc devices free of charge. However, that turns the whole thing into a eugenics discussion, as who decides who gets what, when and where. Uncle Sam? What's to stop him from deciding short brown people get the bc, and aryans don't?
The problem with what happened is that they showed their cards too soon -- evidently they thought that the RC church wasn't going to notice, or that they were among friends, and could discuss freely. This whole upscuddle was, of course, inevitable -- because Phase II has always been to take over the insurance end of it, and then it doesn't matter whether or not the RC church would disagree, as there would have been a layer of indirection "We didn't do it -- the *government* did" for them to hide behind.
Oddly enough, people can grok "the government made me do it"(1) excuse, and forget that supposedly, they constitute the government, and so bear the responsibility. It is part of my cognitive dissonance theory of politics. If you can get people to believe contradicting thoughts, you can get them to believe in your politics with religious fervor -- or as Voltaire said, "If you can get people to believe an absurdity, you can get them to commit an atrocity."
This was a trial balloon that went over like a lead brick. Poor planning on Sibelius' part, and hopefully, it will break the whole damned (literally) thing.
(1) -- Flip would be so proud...
I'll just reiterate here that my core argument is restated by Perlcat in Sentence 1:
"In terms of a cost to society, yes, we are ahead to stop unwanted pregnancies, and pre-conception is the best place, whether that be through abstinence or other devices/medicines."
Like him, I also do not insist that Abortion is part of the strategy. However, I'm not capable of negotiating the religious issues involved, nor the politics of recent RC-based healthcare flap
Mandatory sterilization for anyone receiving government benefits, and also for any man that can be traced down as having impregnated a woman and not being financially responsible.
Yes, those are both very good ideas.
Personally and morally, I have no problem with there being a 'bounty', of, say, $500 cash paid out plus free procedure and bags of frozen peas to anyone that wants to get 'fixed', whether that be man or woman. I don't even have a problem with the government paying for it. In fact, if there is a big enough market, a vasectomy reversal procedure becomes much more cost effective.
However, there would be howls of raaacism or poor-hating if any politician dared to propose it.
I *do* have a problem with forcing private individuals to pay for it, if it violates their conscience. I do not think it fair that we support their fecundity with tax dollars, though -- if they want to have more than 2 children, then benefits should stop. I knew one kid who was going to college on daddy's dime, had 4 kids and his wife was popping out a 5th when he graduated. Irresponsible. If a person can't take care of the kids they have, then they shouldn't make more.
Kind of reminds me of my catholic friend's old, old joke:
Q: What do you call people who use the "rhythm" method of birth control?
A: Mom & Dad.
I have friends and family that still believe the pulling out method works. Any guesses as to how many kids they have?
Lots? I have a friend who was injured and not able to have intercourse for some time. She got pregnant. Biology will have its way if given any opportunity.
And then, there are those who are just confused about how it all works. An ex-girlfriend, who was in her early 40's at the time, had an 11 year old daughter. Keep in mind, this lady is a professional psychic, makes her living reading Tarot cards, a somewhat odd, but very interesting, lady.
She swore to me that her ex-husband was not the father of this little girl, that she hadn't had sex with him for over a year when she was conceived. In fact, she had not had sex with ANYONE for over a year at the time of the girl's conception. She said that her daughter was a child of the universe, a product of an immaculate conception. Of course, the girl's resemblance to her father was just the universe's way of keeping people from asking questions about where she came from.
I just smiled, nodded, and went about my business. Arguing with someone like that is like arguing with My Dear Sweet Olivia, only more pleasant because the lady was pretty, and had a nice disposition.
I had a coworker, a nurse, mind you, who was convinced her Rh+ Boold type changed to Rh- when she was pregnant in an area with only rudimentary medical care available, She would not have had access to RhoGam nor medical care if her child was affected. You can't get through to some. The proverbial none is so blind. . .
Fine, Alien, let them buy their own condoms or bc pills. If people are ready for sex, then they should e prepared to accept all of the responsibility including taking steps to avoid pregnancy. If a private insurance company wants to provide bc and the funds to buy it are also private, so be it that is a contract between a business and its customer but to subsidize it is not right, IMO. What else would you like the government to buy for you with other people's money? See my comment above for the implied threat not to subsidize it....quite a racket.
Dunno, its not like its an easy issue.. Having government pool money from many for some amount of public good is pretty unavoidable. I don't object to the principle, and obviously people will debate over spending priorities. But i can plainly state that I'd like well-paved and policed roads, and I think public libraries tend to be a boon for all, etc..
Publicly provided birth control, yeah its sticky. Is it worth it if it saves you Unwanted Baby Maintenance costs? I don't know, maybe there's a risk/benefit sweet spot. In the past we had urchins and orphanages and young ladies forced into bad marriages. If the Very Poor are raised by sh-tty parents, and end up having babies as teens because they couldn't be monks or join a nunnery, then find they can hardly better themselves while caring for the mewling monsters who then grow up to repeat the cycle.. well, holy shit that sounds expensive too, even criminally insane if you let it play out for generations
I suppose if ObamaCare can compel us to buy insurance, it can compel us to purchase birth control too.. Can it compel a 14-year old to save her money for such a product, since her boyfriend is a lazy prick and won't..?
I ask these questions not having paid one whit of attention to whatever Boxer said.. the issue is much much older then recent flap over Catholic hospitals
The problem is that there is a line between taxes for infrastructure for the common good, and taxes spent on other things. We can say "we need to make it easy for the irresponsible to not foist their burdens upon us by channeling their behavior in less costly ways" -- but by doing that, we've already taken on a de facto burden of looking after those who should be looking after themselves. There is no end to such a commitment.
I have a friend who is an enabler. He enables his daughter, a heroin addict, to keep her child. He buys her clothes, which she sells for a fix. He fixes her car, which she drives downtown for a fix. He does all these things, which in turn, she turns into more drugs.
He complained to me about it. Once. I said "This is a serious problem that you are funding. I have no idea why you are paying your grandchild's parent to be a heroin addict, but you have no right to complain. You are getting exactly what you are paying for."
If you think the nanny state is responsible for all of us, cradle to grave, then free contraceptives make a lot of sense. If you think that a person is responsible for themselves (mentally incapable excepted), then it makes absolutely no sense at all.
I think that if a mentally and physically fit person wishes to become a ward of the state, they need to surrender ALL rights. No voting, no travel, no children, no nothing. There are serious consequences to my not going to work, paying bills, paying taxes, feeding my family, etc., etc. I see no reason why I should fund behavior that I abstain from because I cannot afford it. It boils down to my First Rule of Charity:
Never, ever donate money to people who are better off than you.
I have had a lot of jobs and at a time I worked with mentally handicapped people (who were not in need of constant care mind you) and those that chose to be sexually active paid for their contraception themselves. Now truth to be told they had to be educated about it perhaps a little bit more than what a non mentally handicapped person needs to be educated on it. However, once the concept of "once you get your paycheck, and budget for whatever you want and then save some" settled in (as well as education on health and so on), they pretty much lived their own lives that they could afford to live. Again that they could AFFORD to live.
Those that didn't have jobs and relied on their parents or govt dole, were not allowed to use the funds for things outside of necessities for life and hygiene. Giving them money for contraceptives or buying it for them would make no sense because we are basically stating that if it doesn't work we will also need to take care of the consequences of the activity. Like you said, it will be an everlasting and no stopping cycle and who ends up paying for that? Especially those whose parents are elderly and they may not have that much money to leave behind for their children? If they want to have sex and be in relationships they are encouraged to get a job, they don't want a job and they have parents... are the parents okay with helping out? the parents are not okay with helping out, well she needs to get a job! Either she or he remains celibate and find healthy relationships in other ways (or the partner carries the responsibility for the contraception) or they find a job and choose to remain celibate or not. Everyone is encouraged to get a job anyway. It is as simple as that.
If a person with mental handicaps can be trained to get a job, budget and save, buy and use contraception correctly, I have no idea why someone who isn't mentally handicap can't do the same thing.
Like the bums standing around on the local corners here in San Diego, smoking? Even if I wanted to smoke, I couldn't afford it. So I point to the cigarette and tell them that they obviously have more disposable income than I do. Then watch them pull out their smartphone and call the guy in the Beemer to come pick them up for their rotation to a new corner.
The way I see it is this. Life happens and life is hard. However, people should not be encouraged to look to the government and taxpayers to pay for their mistakes, sins and actions. There are so many charities and churches, temples and organizations that are more than happy to help if they are allowed to help. I am willing to VOLUNTARILY give to someone that needs help and help that person help themselves and be of help to others once they are on their feet. They see my face or the face of the community/congregation or charitable agent that helps them. Unless it is a true evil person, they will do what they can to change their circumstances, and if the circumstances happened through no fault of their own, having our help will make it easier for her or him to leave the past behind.
However, walking to a govt office and seeing the faceless bureacracy and the overworked social workers and putting your information in for government dole does nothing in changing an individual outlook on their future. The faceless taxpayer is unimportant and their behaviors increase. Even if the initial problem was not of their own making, without proper direction they will continue to go on a bad road. I understand that life is hard and it happens, but I nor you should HAVE to pay for other people's actions unless we want to. Taxes are paid only for those well paved roads and libraries and things for the WHOLE public to BENEFIT from. Taxes are not for the few that make bad decisions or for the few that had unfortunate circumstances. Taxes are for disaster areas, defense and infrastructure. CHARITY is for the those that make bad decisions and had unfortunate circumstances. The IRS is not a charitable organization. We should separate the two things.
Botoxster, being the ignorant liberal whore that she is, forgot to do a little math. If there's, lets say 150 million women in this country, of which at least half are of childbearing age, then that's 75 million times 600, the net cost of this scheme is 45 billion dollars.
And the expense of birth contorl is NOTHING compared to the expense of a child! Oh, of coure, I guess an abortion would be cheaper. . .
And I'm sure that the "Plan B" morning after pill, and late term abortions will be somehow tied into this as well.
Girlfriend I pay double (or more) that on my games and entertainment and clothes and what nots. You tripping. If I want to have sex it goes into the budget (all the things that apply), if I don't I don't need to budget for it. I don't need my boss to be all up in my personal business paying for my personal stuff. That is personal stuff, the boss and the employer don't need to know all that. That is just nasty and you are stupid. Stop talking your idiocy is showing.
Kimmy...did you say that with the finger snap...ricky lake head & neck movement? Cuz that would have been cool if you did!
Just funnin'!
LOL!
I can picture that.
I believe the major downfall of the underclass, is their disconnection to planning ahead. If socialists aren't stopped from enabling them, they will never learn that it is within their grasp to succeed.
Another clueless idiot, attempting to rewrite religion in Barack's image. Moron.