SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:51 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,044 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunder1 View Post
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.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:52 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,044 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyLittle View Post
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?
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:54 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,044 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
Just out of curiosity .... What's the rate of people not having sex getting pregnant ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyLittle View Post
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?
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:02 PM
Cat Rack
MtnGoat's Avatar
Lyle, WA
Joined Dec 2000
1,478 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
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.
MtnGoat is offline Find More Posts by MtnGoat
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:23 PM
Registered User
S. FL
Joined Jan 2007
859 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyLittle View Post
Contraceptives do not prevent pubic lice.
Some would argue that contraceptives are a door way drug to getting pubic lice.
Libelle201B is offline Find More Posts by Libelle201B
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:30 PM
Registered User
United States, FL, Eustis
Joined Oct 2012
434 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnGoat View Post
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.
AustinG is offline Find More Posts by AustinG
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:42 PM
Registered User
S. FL
Joined Jan 2007
859 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnGoat View Post
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.
Libelle201B is offline Find More Posts by Libelle201B
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:47 PM
Registered Broncos Fan!
n00b-E's Avatar
United States, CO
Joined Sep 2007
689 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libelle201B View Post
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.
n00b-E is offline Find More Posts by n00b-E
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:48 PM
Cat Rack
MtnGoat's Avatar
Lyle, WA
Joined Dec 2000
1,478 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libelle201B View Post
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.
MtnGoat is offline Find More Posts by MtnGoat
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:51 PM
Registered User
S. FL
Joined Jan 2007
859 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinG View Post
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.
Libelle201B is offline Find More Posts by Libelle201B
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:59 PM
Cat Rack
MtnGoat's Avatar
Lyle, WA
Joined Dec 2000
1,478 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libelle201B View Post
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.
MtnGoat is offline Find More Posts by MtnGoat
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 04:01 PM
Registered User
CrazyLittle's Avatar
United States, OH, Brilliant
Joined Sep 2011
383 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnGoat View Post
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?
CrazyLittle is offline Find More Posts by CrazyLittle
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 04:09 PM
Registered User
United States, FL, Eustis
Joined Oct 2012
434 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libelle201B View Post
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.
AustinG is offline Find More Posts by AustinG
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 04:10 PM
Registered User
United States, FL, Eustis
Joined Oct 2012
434 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyLittle View Post
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.
AustinG is offline Find More Posts by AustinG
Last edited by AustinG; Dec 12, 2012 at 04:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 04:12 PM
Cat Rack
MtnGoat's Avatar
Lyle, WA
Joined Dec 2000
1,478 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libelle201B View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyLittle View Post
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.
MtnGoat is offline Find More Posts by MtnGoat
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help! is using a high temp glue gun to cut foam hazardous to my health giantkevmiester 3D Foamies 5 May 28, 2012 12:37 PM
Discussion Texas public health lab Jim Thomerson Life, The Universe, and Politics 10 Mar 03, 2012 04:43 PM
Discussion Obama supporters cut off women's heads Eljimb0 Life, The Universe, and Politics 21 Oct 29, 2010 06:23 AM
Man Sues Women's only Health Club MtnGoat Life, The Universe, and Politics 182 Feb 02, 2006 05:24 PM