Birth Control, Healthcare, Elephants, A$$es and other Blowhard Personalities - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Can't Know · #1 03-02-2012, 12:52 PM

Okay, so I'm perplexed.

All of the rhetoric and imflammatory dialog aside, this latest "Rush vs. the world" episode caught my attention and started me thinking about the topic. (Mind you, I don't listen to the guy so I haven't actually heard him speak on it, just read several articles discussing it.)

After all, birth control is birth control. Is that or is that not true?

No one from the government ever showed up and bought me condoms (or birth control pills, diaphragms and various creams and jellies for my partners). We took responsibility for what we did and how we did it. To the extent the government may have known about it (and in one case, a local constable did) they didn't care.

So can someone please explain the rational basis of the government buying buying birth control for about half of our population -- and without layers of socialistic blather? (Or the bleeding-heart, knee-jerk response of "buying women pills is better than paying for their abortions" -- since it still takes away the *personal responsibility* associated with birth control.) Really, if that's the standard, then let's give everyone a free membership to the health club of their choice, because that's cheaper than paying the medical costs associated with couch-potatoism.

(One other aside: this is not a third-world or developing country where women are not people and are subjugated and drug by their hair between caves, so there is little point about debating the condoms handed out in such places; that is not relevant to the present issue in this country.)

Massaging birth control as "women's health care" seems to be nothing more than BS semantics designed to get the government to pay for a personal expense decision. If you want birth control, then pay for it. If you don't, then pay the consequences.

tbomachines · #2 03-02-2012, 01:14 PM

Wrong. "birth control" is a misnomer for the drugs. They treat a variety of medical conditions, many hormonal. Thanks for sharing your miseducated insight though.

MS Fowler · #3 03-02-2012, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

Wrong. "birth control" is a misnomer for the drugs. They treat a variety of medical conditions, many hormonal. Thanks for sharing your miseducated insight though.

Wrong. Oversimplification.
Some people use birth control drugs to regulate medical conditions.
Many others use them to provide sex without consequence--i.e. recreation.

If this form of recreation is to be paid for by the tax payers, then why another form of recreation? What is the rational dividing line?

tbomachines · #4 03-02-2012, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Wrong. Oversimplification.
Some people use birth control drugs to regulate medical conditions.
Many others use them to provide sex without consequence--i.e. recreation.

If this form of recreation is to be paid for by the tax payers, then why another form of recreation? What is the rational dividing line?

Op stated "birth control is birth control right?"

Sorry for answering the question.

aklim · #5 03-02-2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Can't Know

So can someone please explain the rational basis of the government buying buying birth control for about half of our population -- and without layers of socialistic blather? (Or the bleeding-heart, knee-jerk response of "buying women pills is better than paying for their abortions" -- since it still takes away the *personal responsibility*

If you don't, then pay the consequences.

Therein lies the problem. You don't see that it is cheaper per month to give you birth control from a financial sense than to pay for your offspring. Second, it is more expensive from a political standpoint to say "Your kid, your problem" since it gives the impression of being heartless and we want a kind leader. Added up over the years, it might be more expensive than an abortion, cost wise but if they decide to carry it to term and cannot pay for it, we have another burden on our hands. IF we could simply not have to pay for the consequence of the sex, I'd be agreeing with you but the reality is that we will.

The only way to do it would be to simply let the woman do as she please. If a kid comes and she cannot support it, take it away and adopt it to someone who can and will support it. Do you ever see that being politically palatable? I don't. I'd go for it but I tend to be more harsh than most.

aklim · #6 03-02-2012, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Wrong. Oversimplification.
Some people use birth control drugs to regulate medical conditions.
Many others use them to provide sex without consequence--i.e. recreation.

If this form of recreation is to be paid for by the tax payers, then why another form of recreation? What is the rational dividing line?

Then remove the cost of the bundle of joy the woman pops out.

MS Fowler · #7 03-02-2012, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Then remove the cost of the bundle of joy the woman pops out.

false choice
How am I responsible for her poor choices?

MTI · #8 03-02-2012, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Wrong. Oversimplification.
Some people use birth control drugs to regulate medical conditions.
Many others use them to provide sex without consequence--i.e. recreation.

If this form of recreation is to be paid for by the tax payers, then why another form of recreation? What is the rational dividing line?

What about "family planning?" Do only single women rely on oral contraceptives?

More pragmatically, what is the origin of the concept that women should be penalized (consequences) for sex?

aklim · #9 03-02-2012, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

false choice
How am I responsible for her poor choices?

Does your tax dollar go towards these kids that they cannot afford? If so, you are now responsible.

Honus · #10 03-02-2012, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

false choice
How am I responsible for her poor choices?

You're not. Neither is the fetus (or baby if you prefer) who gets aborted because the mother had no birth control.

Also, as AKLIM points out, whether you are responsible or not, it might be in your financial interest to minimize the harm caused by her irresponsible behavior.

aklim · #11 03-02-2012, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

what is the origin of the concept that women should be penalized (consequences) for sex?

Same as the origin of the concept that I should be penalized for getting drunk instead of studying and as a consequence, flunking out of school, I suppose.

Or as we said "This is the fawking you get for the fawking you gave".

aklim · #12 03-02-2012, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

You're not. Neither is the fetus (or baby if you prefer) who gets aborted because the mother had no birth control.

Are you sure of that? When I have a welfare baby, who is responsible and by responsible, I mean not only financially? Just me? aborted fetus is cheap. 18 years of a kid is NOT.

Honus · #13 03-02-2012, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Are you sure of that? When I have a welfare baby, who is responsible and by responsible, I mean not only financially? Just me? aborted fetus is cheap. 18 years of a kid is NOT.

I'm not following you. What I attempted to say to MS Fowler is that he is not responsible for poor choices made by others, but that that anti-abortion people should want to pay for birth control if it will reduce the number of abortions of innocent fetuses. The only caveat on that would be that pro-life purists rightfully object to the types of birth control that do their work after fertilization.

I would also note that just because he is not responsible for their poor choices does not mean that we taxpayers won't get stuck with the bill for raising the unwanted kid.

MTI · #14 03-02-2012, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Same as the origin of the concept that I should be penalized for getting drunk instead of studying and as a consequence, flunking out of school, I suppose.

Or as we said "This is the fawking you get for the fawking you gave".

Okay, but what if there was a legal medication that could have prevented your intoxication, whether intentional or not, and that medication also was useful in other afflictions unrelated to binge drinking . . . access to the medication be made more difficult so that you should have to suffer the hangover and have lower grades as a moral penalty?

jplinville · #15 03-02-2012, 02:57 PM

Where is the line drawn? BC pills being used for medical complications is one thing, using them so you can have sex without fear of procreation is another. How can you differentiate between the two actions?