That works for me. Pay for nothing at all... No contraceptives... No abortions... No welfare.. No nothing. But remember if you just turn off everything at once, crime will become rampant. Remember, we have guns here.... lots of them. You might become a victim. You might defend yourself but is that really the world you want to live in....Beyond the Thunderdome?

There is a way out of this but it's going to take some work by everyone to not have it backfire in our faces. To start with, we are going to have to want to solve our social problems instead of ignore them but that's not popular because it's going to take work and cost money.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz

That works for me. Pay for nothing at all... No contraceptives... No abortions... No welfare.. No nothing. But remember if you just turn off everything at once, crime will become rampant. Remember, we have guns here.... lots of them. You might become a victim. You might defend yourself but is that really the world you want to live in....Beyond the Thunderdome?

There is a way out of this but it's going to take some work by everyone to not have it backfire in our faces. To start with, we are going to have to want to solve our social problems instead of ignore them but that's not popular because it's going to take work and cost money.

100% spot on

Mr. Wiz, I do not understand your logic. Please be more clear. People on welfare need welfare. People having sex are having fun. You saying that it's impossible for people to control their sex drive (which is false) is not a reason for me to pay for your rubber.

Even if this were plausible that I should pay for your rubber, many people are strongly against rubber, like Catholics. This would be a violation of the first amendment, surely it would.

Why should you pay for my rope when I go rock climbing? I love to rock climb, and rope keeps me safe. What is the difference between this and you having sex with girls? Because you claim that you are not in control of your sex time?

On a final point, it sounds like some of you are implying that people who are unwanted children become criminals. This is a sad stereotype. Many children like this became great people. Generalizing an entire group of people is a bad thing to do. Even if many are "bad" people, is it really worth killing Michael Jordan and Barack Obama over this?

Subsidizing bad behavior

Gets you more bad behavior

Originally Posted by Eli Lipschitz

Mr. Wiz, I do not understand your logic. Please be more clear. People on welfare need welfare. People having sex are having fun. You saying that it's impossible for people to control their sex drive (which is false) is not a reason for me to pay for your rubber.

Even if this were plausible that I should pay for your rubber, many people are strongly against rubber, like Catholics. This would be a violation of the first amendment, surely it would.

Why should you pay for my rope when I go rock climbing? I love to rock climb, and rope keeps me safe. What is the difference between this and you having sex with girls? Because you claim that you are not in control of your sex time?

On a final point, it sounds like some of you are implying that people who are unwanted children become criminals. This is a sad stereotype. Many children like this became great people. Generalizing an entire group of people is a bad thing to do. Even if many are "bad" people, is it really worth killing Michael Jordan and Barack Obama over this?

Sounds like you are putting words in my mouth and then arguing against them.

First off, I agreed that paying for birth control would be cheaper than paying for abortions and unwanted children on assistance. I believe that's true, although I have no facts to back it up. I didn't say anything more about sex or bad people relative to that point.

Then I said don't pay for birth control. Don't pay for abortions. Don't pay for assistance.... Don't pay for anything. Then I made the assertion that cutting off all assistance to poor people will likely drive up crime. I believe that's true. Desperate people will do desperate things and crime will rise.

So do you want to solve the problem in the cheapest, easiest way possible or do you want to take on the larger social problem in a responsible way? We didn't get to where we are over night and there are no over night solutions... At least there aren't for the larger social problem... That being generations of Americans raised on social programs and crime as a way of life.

I'm all for fixing the big problem but in the absence of that, I'd rather take the cheap way out and pay for birth control and in the process reduce abortions and other expenses than stand on some silly principal about not paying for somebody's rubber because sex is a choice. But, that's just my opinion....

Originally Posted by bildo baggins

Subsidizing bad behavior

Gets you more bad behavior

Gotta clarify 'subsidising' and 'protecting'

Different thang dooooooooooooooooooood

Originally Posted by schrederman

Responsible parents could have the same effect...

Keep dreaming

It's not really a dream to expect accountability. It's an easy reality. Deadbeat Dad's are at least held accountable in public eye for the most part. Having babies while knowingly not being able to support them makes for a deadbeat Mom

Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz

Sounds like you are putting words in my mouth and then arguing against them.

First off, I agreed that paying for birth control would be cheaper than paying for abortions and unwanted children on assistance. I believe that's true, although I have no facts to back it up. I didn't say anything more about sex or bad people relative to that point.

Then I said don't pay for birth control. Don't pay for abortions. Don't pay for assistance.... Don't pay for anything. Then I made the assertion that cutting off all assistance to poor people will likely drive up crime. I believe that's true. Desperate people will do desperate things and crime will rise.

So do you want to solve the problem in the cheapest, easiest way possible or do you want to take on the larger social problem in a responsible way? We didn't get to where we are over night and there are no over night solutions... At least there aren't for the larger social problem... That being generations of Americans raised on social programs and crime as a way of life.

I'm all for fixing the big problem but in the absence of that, I'd rather take the cheap way out and pay for birth control and in the process reduce abortions and other expenses than stand on some silly principal about not paying for somebody's rubber because sex is a choice. But, that's just my opinion....

Saying that this is the cheaper way to crime is a big assumption that probably is not true. It also implies that you are for getting rid of the great stars who were "unwanted" children.

Government abortions (which it looks like you are implying) are not cheaper for "society" in any way.

You still have not mentioned people like Catholics paying for birth control. It would be unrealistic to exempt many people from paying for rubber on their taxes. I can assure you, the Supreme Court would rule this unconstitutional-just on this ground.

Last, where is it in American values that says Americans must pay for other Americans things outside of welfare? The point of America is there is no socialism. Paying for rubber and not food stamps is socialism on a small and explicit scale.

Originally Posted by Eli Lipschitz

Saying that this is the cheaper way to crime is a big assumption that probably is not true. It also implies that you are for getting rid of the great stars who were "unwanted" children.

Government abortions (which it looks like you are implying) are not cheaper for "society" in any way.

You still have not mentioned people like Catholics paying for birth control. It would be unrealistic to exempt many people from paying for rubber on their taxes. I can assure you, the Supreme Court would rule this unconstitutional-just on this ground.

Last, where is it in American values that says Americans must pay for other Americans things outside of welfare? The point of America is there is no socialism. Paying for rubber and not food stamps is socialism on a small and explicit scale.

There is so much 'wrong' with your post it's a job to know where to start, so prolly easier for me to ask you what it is you want from your fellow man in the society you were born into ?

Originally Posted by Eli Lipschitz

Saying that this is the cheaper way to crime is a big assumption that probably is not true. It also implies that you are for getting rid of the great stars who were "unwanted" children.

You are still missing my point. "A cheaper way to crime" What on earth is that suppose to mean? "Getting rid of stars that are unwanted children" Where did I say I wanted to get rid of anyone? I said, there would be fewer unwanted children born and fewer abortions. Now are you an advocate for women to get pregnant with unwanted children because they may become stars? If so, then you should also become an advocate for taking care of them until they do become stars. No child is born a star.

Government abortions (which it looks like you are implying) are not cheaper for "society" in any way.

that's what I said. I believe buying rubbers is cheaper.

You still have not mentioned people like Catholics paying for birth control.

FWIW, I was once a confirmed Catholic. I don't care if they don't want people to use condoms. As long as people have a legal choice to use them then they will. All Catholics have to do is pay for their own health insurance. Simply because their money gets mixed into a pool where others buy condoms isn't their concern.

It would be unrealistic to exempt many people from paying for rubber on their taxes. I can assure you, the Supreme Court would rule this unconstitutional-just on this ground.

You are going to assure me what the Supreme Court will rule? Wow. You are amazing. Did you think the Supreme would have struck down Obama care too or did you know they were going to uphold it?

Last, where is it in American values that says Americans must pay for other Americans things outside of welfare? The point of America is there is no socialism. Paying for rubber and not food stamps is socialism on a small and explicit scale.

It's not a matter of what Americans must do. It's a matter of practicality. We already support people. If doing so in one way is cheaper than the other then that's the one I'm for. The fact that it provides for fewer abortions and unwanted children makes the choice easy for me. Now, must we do this? There is no must. Like you said, it's not in the constitution. But I still think is a good idea and a good money saving plan. That's my personal opinion on the subject.

Originally Posted by bildo baggins

It's not really a dream to expect accountability. It's an easy reality. Deadbeat Dad's are at least held accountable in public eye for the most part. Having babies while knowingly not being able to support them makes for a deadbeat Mom

How about where couples take fertility drugs, pop'em out like a litter of puppies and then say "God will provide?"

Mr. Wiz, if Catholics pay for rubber through taxes or through a insurance company that is forced to give free rubber, this is a big problem. If some insurance companies pay for free rubber and others do not, that is fine. Catholics and others who are very upset about rubber (this is their view, just like how free stuff is your view) can choose to go to a different insurance company that doesn't force them to pay for rubber, if they want to.

The problem is when government mandates free rubber, and society is forced to pay for something not because it fixes problems (even if you think it does) by being cheaper and cutting down on crime in a very abstract and stretched way. Companies can pay for rubber, but government can't force others to pay for it, either through taxes going to things like rubber, or by forcing insurance companies to pay for rubber.

Originally Posted by Eli Lipschitz

Mr. Wiz, if Catholics pay for rubber through taxes or through a insurance company that is forced to give free rubber, this is a big problem. If some insurance companies pay for free rubber and others do not, that is fine. Catholics and others who are very upset about rubber (this is their view, just like how free stuff is your view) can choose to go to a different insurance company that doesn't force them to pay for rubber, if they want to.

The problem is when government mandates free rubber, and society is forced to pay for something not because it fixes problems (even if you think it does) by being cheaper and cutting down on crime in a very abstract and stretched way. Companies can pay for rubber, but government can't force others to pay for it, either through taxes going to things like rubber, or by forcing insurance companies to pay for rubber.

You evidently have a reading comprehension problem. I never said free rubbers cut down on crime.... not even in "a very abstract and stretched way". I said if you cut all assistance crime will rise. But now that you've opened that can of worms.... Maybe free birth control would lower crime. Fewer children born into desperate conditions might end up as criminals. Hummm interesting angle that I hadn't thought of..... Thanks for the idea.


Lets keep one thing straight, birth control isn't just rubbers. It's an entire group of medicines that #1, prevent unwanted pregnancies. #2 They help prevent sexually transmitted disease. #3 They help women with cycle disorders and hormone imbalances. They may do other things but since I'm not a doctor, I cant say. What I will say is that the AMA considers birth control medicines to be essential medicine. Should religious groups have a say in what is to be considered essential medicine? I don't think so. Some religions don't believe in blood transfusions and some don't believe in many other modern medicine procedures. Good for them. They don't have to receive any of those treatments and they aren't ever paying for them for anyone else anyway. They are paying for their own insurance and the insurance company in return pays for their treatment when it's covered. The insurance company never asks them if it's OK to use their premium money to pay for the treatment of someone else but it's done all the time. That's how insurance works. You generally pay more than you need and the excess pays for others. If not, then insurance companies would go broke. So if your taxes end up paying for your health insurance then it pays for that and that alone. The insurance company pays for treatments.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz

That works for me. Pay for nothing at all... No contraceptives... No abortions... No welfare.. No nothing. But remember if you just turn off everything at once, crime will become rampant. Remember, we have guns here.... lots of them. You might become a victim. You might defend yourself but is that really the world you want to live in....Beyond the Thunderdome?

There is a way out of this but it's going to take some work by everyone to not have it backfire in our faces. To start with, we are going to have to want to solve our social problems instead of ignore them but that's not popular because it's going to take work and cost money.

It's not popular because it doesn't work. The argument you present is an abuse of the word solution/solve. Not a single nation on Earth or in human history has solved these problems.

Subsidy doesn't solve them, it hides them. Note your claim crime would become rampant without the subsidies.

Further, it exacerbates them because those receiving said subsidies absorb this tacit admission of State responsibilty for their lives as a basis for ever more subsidy. Everyone who is a net payer becomes nothing but a tool for trying to do away with the outcome of poor decision making and irrational values.

It does not work to remove the penalties the universe places on actions inconsistent with reality by forcing those making proper decisions consistent with the real world to allow those who do not, to escape reality and the constraints it places on the outcomes of human choices.

Doing so creates more strife not less as all struggle for political control of personal choices. It creates more costs not less as the innate penalties of poor decision making are removed. What do you get when you subsidize behavior? MORE of it, not less.