Originally Posted by thunder1

A single mother who has to take care of her infant child certainly falls into that category. And yet instead of paying for birth control, you would rather pay for the child's upkeep? Birth control for the mother's entire life would cost less than the first two years of caring for the child.

So would her choice to not get pregnant.

The part you keep sidling right past is that state-provided bc isn't the only method to prevent pregnancy.

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

You can complain about how stupid these mothers are, but you're still going to have to foot the bill for their care and any potential jail time from ill-raised children. In the end the joke's on those who are penny-wise pound foolish.

Why is it not the responsibility of the parents of that child? How is THEIR responsibility shifted upon the general public?

Originally Posted by logan5

Just out of curiosity .... What's the rate of people not having sex getting pregnant ?

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

About 50% of participants in abstinence-only programs stay abstinent. The study showed that the four programs studied were not any more effective at changing behavior compared to the control group.
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publi...abstinence.pdf

Again, unsurprisingly, the highest rates of teen pregnancies occur in states that promote abstinence-only education programs.

So, likewise unsurprisingly, the LOWEST rate of pregnancy is in those who don't complete a sex act. Choose to have sex, great. But, choose to support the result when you choose to have sex.

If I didn't partake in the choice to have that sex, why do I get stuck with part of supporting the result of it?

Originally Posted by wrightme

That does NOT make it automagically the responsibility of 'everyone else.'

The key here is the fully intentional avoidance of the actual cause of the 'public' costs. the op and others persist in acting and arguing as if the source of the costs is anything but their own demand to pay said costs.

As I've noted numerous times, I don't buy my neighbor a car and then blame them, or someone else's refusal to buy them a car, for the cost of my demand that someone buy them a car. The cause of those costs to me would be my choice to pay them.

Arguing as if the cause of the public cost is not their own decisions to demand to pay is crucial for avoiding their own role in the costs. Then they can present avoiding said costs, treated as if they're some uncaused feature of life which they have no role in, as something which must be handled by further spending via govt.

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

Contraceptives do not prevent pubic lice.

Some would argue that contraceptives are a door way drug to getting pubic lice.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

The key here is the fully intentional avoidance of the actual cause of the 'public' costs. the op and others persist in acting and arguing as if the source of the costs is anything but their own demand to pay said costs.

As I've noted numerous times, I don't buy my neighbor a car and then blame them, or someone else's refusal to buy them a car, for the cost of my demand that someone buy them a car. The cause of those costs to me would be my choice to pay them.

Arguing as if the cause of the public cost is not their own decisions to demand to pay is crucial for avoiding their own role in the costs. Then they can present avoiding said costs, treated as if they're some uncaused feature of life which they have no role in, as something which must be handled by further spending via govt.

That is the crux of it. It shouldn't be shocking that when we stop making people be responsible for their own decisions that they make more and more bad decisions. The left likes to pretend that freedom and responsibility aren't related. When in fact they go hand in hand. If you try to give freedom without people being responsible then you have the impossible task of trying to find other ways to get them to act responsibly. Ultimately that is how freedom gets taken away.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

The key here is the fully intentional avoidance of the actual cause of the 'public' costs. the op and others persist in acting and arguing as if the source of the costs is anything but their own demand to pay said costs.

As I've noted numerous times, I don't buy my neighbor a car and then blame them, or someone else's refusal to buy them a car, for the cost of my demand that someone buy them a car. The cause of those costs to me would be my choice to pay them.

Arguing as if the cause of the public cost is not their own decisions to demand to pay is crucial for avoiding their own role in the costs. Then they can present avoiding said costs, treated as if they're some uncaused feature of life which they have no role in, as something which must be handled by further spending via govt.

What you seem to be avoiding is the natural and instinctive drive of humans and all living forms to procreate. Nature doesn't have or require a "responsibility" clause. Given that and the fact that BC can only slow the growth of the human population, something that impacts everyone, it's only reasonable that governments provide it even if some don't want to pay for it.

Originally Posted by Libelle201B

What you seem to be avoiding is the natural and instinctive drive of humans and all living forms to procreate. Nature doesn't have or require a "responsibility" clause. Given that and the fact that BC can only slow the growth of the human population, something that impacts everyone, it's only reasonable that governments provide it even if some don't want to pay for it.

Given that, and the fact that humans all have a natural killer instinct, coupled with the fact that some folks say that wide access to firearms results in deaths (which reduces the earths population, something that affects us all), the Government should finance all firearms purchases.

Originally Posted by Libelle201B

What you seem to be avoiding is the natural and instinctive drive of humans and all living forms to procreate. Nature doesn't have or require a "responsibility" clause. Given that and the fact that BC can only slow the growth of the human population, something that impacts everyone, it's only reasonable that governments provide it even if some don't want to pay for it.

Nature most certainly does have a responsibilty clause and it's inherent to boot. It's called causality. When you cause something, you're responsible for that something. Someone may attempt to shift or remove the consequences but the causal connection cannot be undone or revoked.

The nature of human drives is more or less obvious yet the cause of said costs remains as I noted . If X is knocked up, X and knocker upper Y are the cause. When Z demands to pay, z is the cause of the costs of assuming the costs of X and Y.

Originally Posted by AustinG

That is the crux of it. It shouldn't be shocking that when we stop making people be responsible for their own decisions that they make more and more bad decisions. The left likes to pretend that freedom and responsibility aren't related. When in fact they go hand in hand. If you try to give freedom without people being responsible then you have the impossible task of trying to find other ways to get them to act responsibly. Ultimately that is how freedom gets taken away.

No, the crux is that it is much cheaper for the government ie the tax payer to provide BC vs paying for the medical expenses and upbringing of a child.

Originally Posted by Libelle201B

No, the crux is that it is much cheaper for the government ie the tax payer to provide BC vs paying for the medical expenses and upbringing of a child.

If we're going to simply proceed on the basis of cost while ignoring the moral basis of the costs, then it's far cheaper to not pay for any of the above.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

If we're going to simply proceed on the basis of cost while ignoring the moral basis of the costs, then it's far cheaper to not pay for any of the above.

Since when did you care about morals? Where's your morality on letting people starve (and children) for no reason?

Originally Posted by Libelle201B

No, the crux is that it is much cheaper for the government ie the tax payer to provide BC vs paying for the medical expenses and upbringing of a child.

No, it is cheaper for the government to not involve itself in those kinds of things to begin with, particularly when we are talking about the federal government. There are families that can assist with such things, local charities, and if those fail then there is the local government. All of those entities/groups are in a much better position to assess actual need and address the problem.

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

Since when did you care about morals? Where's your morality on letting people starve (and children) for no reason?

So if the government doesn't feed them they are going to starve? The poor in America are the most obese group of people in the history of the world. Cutting funding from them is suddenly going to make them starve to death?

Heck you could make the moral argument that cutting their food allowance would be good for them.

Originally Posted by Libelle201B

No, the crux is that it is much cheaper for the government ie the tax payer to provide BC vs paying for the medical expenses and upbringing of a child.

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

Since when did you care about morals? Where's your morality on letting people starve (and children) for no reason?

I care first and foremost about morals, since they shape everything else in which a human mind acts via its choices.

The only position I've taken on people starving here is essentially the following, I have no issues with helping but every issue with forcing other people to help against their free will and their uncoereced, unthreatened cooperation.