Taxpayer birth control?

So I've been watching feminist nonsense on youtube for awhile and many are of the opinion that abortions and birth control pills etc should be paid for by the government. I personally find this idea ridiculous and actually kind of sexist.

As an individual why can't women pay for their own birth control? It's their choice to get birth control pills or not . Government paid abortion is also preposterous in my mind. You are the one who fucked up it should not fall on the taxpayer to pay for your mistake. I'm actually not sure about Canada but a google search informed me that the states has been throwing money into this for about 40 years now.

They call it "family planning" funds. The republicans at the time saw this as a means of limiting welfare payment according to this wikipedia article :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood#Funding



Anyway what is your opinion? Do you believe that government funded birth control serves a nation in any way?

No, I agree with you entirely. It would be selfish and defintely somewhat sexist.

I believe birth control pills should be under normal health coverage just like prescription drugs should be. I also believe abortions should be completely covered under normal health coverage.

So you would prioritize bailing out women too stupid to use protection when they have sex over feed starving African children?

Anyway, if you believe that abortion pills are killing human beings than it's not selfish at all to want them removed from the public. And while it may be nice to say the other side is bunch of a greedy, sexist bastards, it's simply not the case.

I view birth control just like any other prescription drug. I don't know about the U.S. but since the 1968 revision of the criminal code abortion for the most part has been completely unrestricted and in most provinces they are completely or partially paying for the cost of it. I see no reason to change this.

This post was so nonsensically awful that I came into this thread mostly agreeing with Lamp, and now I'm leaving this thread with sympathies towards his opposition.

The very fact of the matter that you would enter a thread with the sole intent of insulting another member of the forum merely shows that your drive to post has begun to evaporate and by extension that you will soon meet the fates of Matt, Link, and so many others. You will become a washed up, old relic of the old days that no one will remember.

Who the hell would want to be remembered here anyways?

Etc. etc. However that doesn't really matter. If abortion is immoral then to give free abortions is immoral by extension, regardless of current or past law. As there is little reason to participate in immoral action unless it is absolutely necessary to a society then we should have little reason to participate in abortion, and by extension spend taxpayer money on abortion pills.

*yaawwwwn* Oh the abortion argument all ready are we? I kill all sorts of animals for my own benefit but they are actually MORE sentient then a new born is and nobody complains about that. Human genes or not a non sentient being will not suffer if you kill it. It doesn't even understand the concept of suffering. Aborting a fetus should be a mothers right, and self righteous religious pricks should stay out of other peoples business as it is THEIR beliefs, not other peoples.

To publically state my opinion, I believe that birth control in all it's forms should be a publically available product, at the cost of it's user. It is irrational to make other people pay for you to have sex, boo hoo you'll have to go without getting laid in high school if you can't afford condoms .

Also, if a medical professional would not like to perform an abortion he shouldn't have too. It's not critical to the womans health. I'm pretty sure there will be plenty who don't mind though.

I agree with the OP. Regardless of your position on Abortion, Birth Control, etc tax dollars shouldn't go towards those things. They are such controversial issues it is unfair to make someone who opposes it pay for it. Even if it is a bigoted, stupid opinion that they hold it is still unfair to make them do that.

I have no idea how you warped this:

To mean that he came here with the sole intent of insulting a member, and how you can rationalize this to be a symbol of his, as you would describe it, inevitable downfall when all you've really done is attempt to polarize an otherwise decent discussion.

A discussion about abortion in a thread about abortion? WHAT IS THIS MADNESS?

Ya, because the animals are not human.

You mean in the same way a sentient being doesn't "suffer" if you kill it instantly in its sleep?

Neither does a sleeping person. In fact did you know animals are more sentient than a person in deep sleep?

If the fetus is human than it has the basic right of being able to live. Thus it is not the mother's right to live or die, it is the fetus'. Because the fetus has made no showing of wanting to die then killing it cannot be justified.

It's not a bunch of self righteous religious pricks, it's a world philosophy that contradicts with yours and you're senselessly insulting them for it. If people believe someone else is doing something immoral, it only makes sense to try and stop them.

I don't know how you've warped me pointing out that he was inevitably going to end up not even wanting to come to Josefvstalin.com again into me saying it's an "inevitable downfall" and that I've "polarized a decent discussion".

Human is just a title. We are not any more special then other animals besides our sentience, and the fact that it's a human fetus to me doesn't give any special privileges.

As for the sleeping bit, it is obviously known that the sleeper in question is a sentient being when awake. Also, in what way could you test a being capable of self awareness of it's self awareness when it's in a state that by it's very nature it can't communicate in? If you cannot tell the difference between a resting man and a undeveloped fetus, then you are clearly not sentient.

That being said, I don't think I'd complain if I died without me even knowing. All men must die after all. If I did not suffer and I didn't know I died then there is really no victim. Society still has to punish the murderer to maintain law and order, and give justice to that person's loved ones as they clearly valued that individual and were harmed. Society must punish people who harm it. I would be far more worried about who I left behind when I spontaneously died then myself, as I would be dead.

A undeveloped fetus on the other hand cannot suffer and the only person who stands to be harmed by the abortion is the mother who may or may not decide to give a damn about the fetus. Therefore I believe it's her choice.

Oh and this was a thread about birth control, you immediately jumped on the morality of abortion without any kind of segway to that . You clearly had a point to make.

You'd complain if you knew you died?

XD I guess the point I was trying to get across is if you die without suffering what more could you ask for if nothings there after death you're at peace forever and if there is something there after death then you never stopped living.

It could be that the "inevitable downfall" I wrote of referred to your theory that Demondaze will be leaving the forum in a similar fashion to Matt and Link (though he is still here), which I believe we can both agree was in a less than reputable state. Also, if you can find a statement before your, "...starving African children" comment that was just as, or even more, radical, be my guest.

It should be covered in a basic universal healthcare coverage. But personally I think abortion should be allowed and people don't have to get them if they don't want to.

Maximum of one.