Funny how they always say "we should fund this, we should fund that," when the "we" they're talking about is WE THE PEOPLE.

I'm tired of this birth control/abortion crap--abstinence works, every time it's tried. And it don't cost a thing!!!

Amen, keefer!

I just love how the left wants to take personal reposnibility away from everything from crime to sex. If I'm the only one getting sick of their quasisocialist, para-anarchal vision for society, I'd be very surprised.

I guess some people for get the goverment's primary function is to manage the country and legislate, not foot the bill for all their good-time parties, er, I mean "progressive programs".

Yes, abstinence works, but our liberal controlled schools supported by our activist liberal judges aren't allowed to teach abstinence! They teach elementary kids how to put condoms on cucumbers and how to have abortions. Then they wonder why there are so many abortions in America and younger kids having them. Look in the mirror liberals. You will see the answer!

Maybe if they would concentrate on teaching things like civics, history, English, math, science, etc., America's kids would have a little intelligence and the taxpayer would have something to show for their tax dollars!

AAR

And why not?

Why should babies be aborted in order to observe rigid ideological conceptions about who should pay for what?

Seems like the only solution the Donks are offering here is to f**k our problems away!

Uhhh, I thought we had figured out what causes pregnancy? Why should my tax dollars go towards someone not being able to control themselves. I can do it....why can't they. Oh no! It's those they people again.

Schools aren't allowed to teach abstinence? They teach elementary-school kids how to have abortions? Those are new ones. Where'd you come up with 'em?

Also, abstinence-only education has been proven not to work (it pushes the loss of virginity backa couple years, then has kids having sex with no protection whatsoever because they don't know any better; it also has lots of kids engaging in oral sex and sodomy in an effort to remain "technical virgins"), yet you guys still want to advocate an ineffectual program because, well, it's what you like, therefore everybody should be subjected to it regardless of its effectiveness. Wow, color me surprised.

Concentrate on teaching things like science? They would if they didn't have to constantly beat back attempts by fundies and wingnuts to teach creationism. Those are your guys, by the way. Maybe you should work on relegating them to the fringes where they belong.

And Matt, "government in the bedroom" refers to the government telling you what you can and can't do. You know, anti-sodomy laws, taking control of a woman's uterus, things like that. Funding birth control doesn't force anybody to have sex, protected or otherwise. It's not telling anybody what they can and can't do. I doubt you'll see that distinction, though, because you don't want to see it.

"Abstinence works every time it's tried"

I love you people, I really do, hearkening back to a 1955 that never existed. Abstinence doesn't work -- biological drives and midwestern boredom will lead kids to throw out the morals in return for a quick thrill every time. If you don't believe that, you were never a teen.

As for solving every problem by having the tax payer pay for it, don't you all want abstinence programs to be payed for on MY dime? Further, it may have gotten past you, but the GOP is in control of the WhiteHouse and Congress, and you all blew the budget while during the "scary" Clinton years, we were paying down the debt.

Frankly, I wouldn't want you all raising children or running a bank considering your inability to understand the nature of either.

Well, back to watching Bush's approval ratings spiral down the toilet.

Cheers!

"Why should my tax dollars go towards someone not being able to control themselves."

Because you'll be paying 10x as much later to help raise this unwanted child! Get a clue. You want no investment in real sex-education that works, you want to outlaw abortions, and yet offer no support for what results: having to support single and low income mothers raise their children.

It's funny how the religious right is totally ok with the hundreds of billions going down the toilet in Iraq, yet sees fit to complain about spending a miniscule fraction of that amount on something that will reduce drastically the thing they hate the most - abortions. We know this about abstinence-only birth control. It works great, until it doesn't.

I had a great time when I was a young man, and all my girlfreinds took the pill. That's the real problem with you people isn't it. You can't stand it when someone is having more fun than you.

You Kool Aid folks crack me up every time. Always offering only simple minded rhetoric instead of an idea for a solution. Sure, abstinence works, but how often is it actually followed? Kids end up wanting to get laid, it's human nature. All evidence shows that even the nimrod "fundies" that make those stupid pledges never stand true to it. So, therefore, a REAL WORLD solution has to come into effect; ie reducing the chances of unwanted pregnancies. Do you fools not realize the abortions are actually up under your Doofus in Chief? Why is that exactly? It's not because of "liberal" sex education, that's for sure. That same stuff about condom use and safety was taught under the last administration, and yet abortions went down year after year. Unfortunately you Party hacks can't fathom that, something positive to your ideology happened under a Democratic President.

Man, what are you people smoking in here and where can I get some?

If you care so much about banning abortion because you believe it is murder then logic would dictate that you should care equally-- if not more-- about preventing unwanted pregnancies. If that means providing access to birth control and sex education to anyone who wants it to prevent abortion, so be it. Yes, abstinence "training" is certainly part of that as well, but that's of pretty limited use if you're talking to an adult couple, especially if they're married. The problem with anstinence-only is that when it fails it fails 100%.

The thing is you seem to be under the delusion that all abortions are had by irresponsible, unwed teenagers-- which means you are ignoring all the adult, married women who don't want children or already have children but can't afford another, either financially or emotionally. What is the real harm in offering them free assistance to pregnancy prevention methods? None, unless you prefer the abortion rate to remain the same.

Keep it simple so the folks on the right understand.

More contraceptives = Fewer pregnancies = fewer abortions, fewer "welfare mothers", fewer children of illegal immigrants "clogging our schools" = less need to raise taxes = more money for you. Are you for the initiative now?

Abstinence education is now the preeminent teaching of pregnancy & STD control in the south which, coincidentally I'm sure, has the highest STD and teen pregnancy rates. Plenty of scientific literature behind this (look up your facts on pubmed rather than right leaning blogs)

More access to contraception = fewer unplanned pregnancies = fewer abortions.

Why can't the right acknowledge this simple fact?

An ounce of prevention ...

Not only are there long term costs associated with unwanted children, take the criminalization of abortion to its logical conclusion...

court costs including expert witnesses
jail time for mothers
jail time for doctors
jail time for fathers
government vagina inspectors (not kidding)
foster care for jailed parents' kids
etc. etc.

Yes all these things will come to pass if the Dobson's get their way. Don't believe me? Check out El Salvador. They outlawed abortion. They seize the uteri of women after hysterectomies and then lock em up for 30 years if it looks like they had an abortion at some point. Even if they got an abortion after being raped when they already had five kids. Too bad kids. No mommy for you.

Get this, in El Salvador, if the mother has an ectopic pregnancy (where the fertilized egg stays in the fallopian tubes) Doctors in El Salvador basically have to wait until it bursts (which is a serious problem for the Mother) even though the baby has a zero percent chance of going to full term. Zero.

That is why these decisions need to be made by doctors and women and not preachers and politicians. The world needs the former and could do just fine without the latter.

RE: "Why should my tax dollars go towards someone not being able to control themselves.... Because you'll be paying 10x as much later to help raise this unwanted child! Get a clue. You want no investment in real sex-education that works, you want to outlaw abortions, and yet offer no support for what results: having to support single and low income mothers raise their children."

Only a true liberal can come up with such twisted and warped logic as that. You can't control yourselves... so that's the taxpayer's problem. You can't protect yourselves from unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases... so that's the taxpayer's problem. You don't want or can't afford the unwanted pregnancies you created... so that's the taxpayer's problem. Wrong! Wrong! WRONG!

Get another job. Work two jobs. Get a better job. Get help from your relatives. Get help from your friends. But most of all... GET YOU HANDS OUT OF THE TAXPAYER'S POCKETS and pay for your own pleasure, entertainment, and mistakes. Take responsibility for your own actions. Don't shift your problems onto the backs or into the pockets of the taxpayer. Take out a loan or home mortgage to pay for your own abortion and birth control! You created the problem -- now you pay for it!

It's funny... no it's ludicrous and outrageous (putting it politely) how you liberals (who can't keep your clothes on) demand that the rest of us to pay for your fun and lack of willpower with our tax dollars; and when your taxpayer funded birth control doesn't work, you want us to pay for your taxpayer funded abortions! Not only do you not want abstinence taught, you want everyone to believe in your lifestyle of free and loose sex. Maybe abstinence would not stop all pregnancies, but maybe it might stop some. Maybe some kids would wait a little longer to have sex and could afford their own kids. Maybe some kids would even get married before they had their own kids, and then have some help with raising them.

You believe it is your "right" to have as much sexual entertainment, pleasure, and gratification as you choose, but then you don't choose to pay for your mistakes out of your pockets. It is your "right" that others should pay for your mistakes. And then you use the warped logic that "it is better to pay for us taxpayers to pay for your sexual entertainment rather than pay for your unwanted children or those children on welfare after you've had your fun!"

And I wouldn't be paying tax dollars and welfare to anyone to can't afford to have or support children, or to anyone who thinks that having kids is a ticket to increased welfare payments and a permanent living on welfare. I would place those children with their relatives if they could pay for them... until the parent could afford to take care of them. Failing that... I would place them in foster homes and pay the foster parents that money until the parents or their relatives could support them. Having children would no longer be a means of obtaining a living from welfare!

AAR

AAR:
Feel better now?
I'd point out that liberals don't seem to be the only ones that can't keep their clothes on but that would be mean.
Abstinence only programs do not work well to prevent either teen pregnancies or STD's. Plenty of literature on that. Try getting your facts from PUBMED rather than right wing echo chambers.

you want us to pay for your taxpayer funded abortions!

Only Margolis has made that stupid claim, I guess because he's tired of Noonan having a monopoly on crazy on his websites.

Not only do you not want abstinence taught

Prove it. Oh, that's right, you can't. Though I know exactly how you're going to attempt to.

Maybe abstinence would not stop all pregnancies, but maybe it might stop some.

I can't decide if it's cognitive dissonance or just plain ignorance that makes you say something like this while railing against birth control. You do understand what birth control is, yes?

OK, so birth control only for the rich.

Yeah, that'll make society better.

AAR,

And lets not have the government picking up the pension payments of corporations who can't control themselves when negotiating with their workers either.

Republicans: those who scream about a single woman getting $200/ month of their "tax dollars" to raise a child, while closing their eyes to $8+ BILLION missing in the Iraq War.

Penny wise, and dollar foolish.

Matt.

"Once again the common answer for Democrats to solve any problem in America is to have tax payers pay for it".

At least Democrats try to pay Matt.
Republicans just charge it and expect future generations to pay for it.

Have you checked out our REPUBLICAN deficits lately???... This darn Democrats Clintonistas did not live us enough of a surplus, bunch of loosers!!!.

What is stopping the parents from saying "The government paid for ineffective birth control, they should cover the cost of my abortion, too."

Well, there's actually a law that says the government doesn't have to pay for abortions. A law, by the way, that was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President (Carter).

Unless you want to get rid of all government funding for everything, that boat has sailed; if it's OK for the Bush Administration to fund abstinence-only education, then it's OK for the government to fund more effective methods of birth control, like, you know, actual birth control.

The reason abstinence-only education is not effective is that when the kids are no longer able to control themselves (and being human and fallible, and subject to common God-given weaknesses), they are more likely to get pregnant because they haven't been provided with any knowledge of "safe sex."

Finally, countries where the State funds birth control, like Canada and most European countries, have lower abortion rates than the U.S. If conservatives were really anti-abortion, then they'd look at these methods of reducing abortion rates, since these methods have a proven success rate. Instead they won't hear of it -- suggesting that conservatives aren't anti-abortion at all, just anti-sex. Liberals care about reducing abortion rates; conservatives do not.

"Only a true liberal can come up with such twisted and warped logic as that."



I'm what _you_ would probably call a liberal. I've never created an unwanted pregnancy. This isn't talk radio. Back your argument up. Show me some links of studies that say that the "liberals" are having more unwanted babies than conservatives.



"Get another job. Work two jobs. Get a better job. Get help from your relatives. Get help from your friends. "



I've got a good job. And I know that I'd rather my tax dollar be spent on one condom than many dollars for 12 years of school lunches and a new car stereo.

I've got a good job. And I know that I'd rather my tax dollar be spent on one condom than many dollars for 12 years of school lunches and a new car stereo.

Exactly. This is not about whether our tax dollars go to support people who are "careless." They will, one way or the other. The question is, do we want our tax dollars going to provide these "careless" people with birth control, or to help bring up their out-of-wedlock children? The answer is obvious: state-funded birth control means less of your money goes to these people, not more.

AAR,

RE: GET YOU HANDS OUT OF THE TAXPAYER'S POCKETS

Conservatives are not the only taxpayers. Liberals and moderates pay taxes too, believe it or not. How do you know that your tax dollars would go to support this measure? Maybe it would be my tax dollars. Right now, Bu$hCo is spending billions of dollars on a war that I think is a joke (didn't they "misplace" something like 8 BILLION dollars), so I understand your lamentation of poorly used tax dollars. Maybe your tax dollars were part of that lost $8 Billion.

Also, it is true that people who do not want to create babies shouldn't have unprotected sex, but they do. Young people who are not prepared to be parents shouldn't have sex, but they do. Perhaps they are misinformed or uninformed. Maybe some kids have goodly conservative parents who refuse to teach their children about the birds and the bees, in the fear that they might be "promoting" sexual activity. Maybe, in lieu of being taught the facts of life in school from an educated instructor, they "learn" from their friends on the playground. Unfortunately, uninformed kids grow up into uninformed adults.

If you really care about reducing abortions and reducing young parents and their children's dependance on taxpayer dollars, then it seems that the cost of providing proper education and contraception would be far less than the costs to the taxpayers of the consequences of unwanted pregnacies. We don't live in a perfect world.

Well, we can always count on a topic about sex, taxpayer support for condoms, and abortions to bring all of the liberals out of the woodwork. But, that is to be expected. Their lives revolve around sex, abortions, condoms, and spreading their views far and wide!!!

RE: "Back your argument up. Show me some links of studies that say that the "liberals" are having more unwanted babies than conservatives."

I don't need to back up my arguments. Liberals don't! Those are my opinions, and I am not alone. It is the liberals not conservatives who are pushing so hard for free birth control, abortions, and no say or rights of parents in anything related to sex or abortions. Read the news for yourself. I'm not going back through all of the news archives to lay out the stories that liberals won't read anyway and which won't change their agenda. As far as conservatives or liberals, it doesn't matter what their political view is, they should all pay for their own fun and games and its consequences. Free this, free that, free something else... except that taxpayers or someone has to pay for all of that free stuff. Like giving candy to a child, they like it and will vote for it every time. But just as candy and sweets fatten and sicken the child, free handouts and subsidized handouts weaken those who receive it! Why work hard for something when another person's tax dollars can pay for it. And some wonder why Americans won't work anymore. Why should they. Just don't expect me and America's tax payers to pay for their entertainment along with everything else!

RE: "The reason abstinence-only education is not effective is that when the kids are no longer able to control themselves (and being human and fallible, and subject to common God-given weaknesses), they are more likely to get pregnant because they haven't been provided with any knowledge of 'safe sex.'"

And making sex a casual topic from elementary school on up helps? Not in my book. What message does it send to a child when their teachers teach them how to protect themselves when having sex. It condones it and says go right ahead and do what feels good. Forget what your parents are telling you! And with the views of our liberal teachers, who knows what values they also teach the children in addition to the mechanics! And the liberal television and media agenda doesn't help at all. I know. Sex sells and it is a booming business. If that causes children to have more sex and at a younger age, it isn't our fault. Live with it. Just pay more tax dollars to support it!

RE: "And lets not have the government picking up the pension payments of corporations who can't control themselves when negotiating with their workers either."

I wholeheartedly agree! The unions insisted on the unaffordable packages, and the companies agreed to it when business was great. Now, both of them can live with it and figure out their own solution. Don't expect me to pay for that too. I have my own retirement to worry about. I don't know what would be a good answer, but rather than have people lose their retirement plans and hopes each time a companies goes under. I think I would switch to some private controlled system that would move with the employee even as they switch jobs. It would have to be some type of forced contributions and one that they couldn't tap into or withdraw funds from until retirement. I do support something similar under private social security accounts.

RE "...those who scream about a single woman getting $200/ month of their "tax dollars" to raise a child..."

One mistake is one thing. Mistake after mistake after mistake is yet another. Having kids should not be a way of using welfare to pay for one's living. If a person is on welfare and can't afford to feed the children they have, then do not have more for the taxpayers to support. If they do, then find someone who will do it for them, or if the taxpayer has to do that job to, it will be in a foster home until and unless the mother or parents figure out a way to pay for them!

RE: "I've got a good job. And I know that I'd rather my tax dollar be spent on one condom than many dollars for 12 years of school lunches and a new car stereo. "

And just how much of your tax dollars to you think should go to paying for other peoples condoms? How about giving 100% so others can enjoy their fun and lifestyle. Go down to the local drugstore, but a bag full, and start passing them out. There's nothing stopping you. It's the "right" thing to do. You don't need that new car or television set as much as others need free condoms. Those people aren't responsible for their own actions or its consequences. There are millions out there who can use your hard earned money better than you can. You say 100% of your money is too much, isn't fair, and you want my money too? So 100% or your money is too much and 0% of my money is not enough. In other words, you will decide what is a fair amount based on your opinions and I will pay the difference in what you want and what you are willing to pay... forcing me to pay for your opinions! I don't think so!

RE: "Have you checked out our REPUBLICAN deficits lately???..."

That's not the issue here and has nothing to do with paying for free condoms. Oh, wait a minute. It does. You want even more money to put on your liberal social programs to increase the deficit more! I got it. It's not the deficit that bothers liberals, it's the fact they can't spend the money on their pet programs. That's one of the real reasons liberals have a problem fighting the war on terror or spending money to keep illegal immigrants out of America. More money going to things that aren't on the liberal agenda for America and more of those tax dollars they can't spend. And to make it even worse, liberals will have to increase the deficit even more or increase taxes or both when they get back in power to fund their give-away programs. And we both know how that's going to go over with the tax payers!

It's time liberals stop defending the actions of others and hold those people responsible, accountable, liable for their own actions and their consequences. If they aren't expected to do the right thing, they won't... just like with children! Don't shift their problems to me and the taxpayer!!!

And by the way, I do think the Republicans are spending too much and I want to see it cut back too, but not because I want more for Democrats to give away on their own agenda! I don't want defense spending cut either. I want more Americans who can work taken off the welfare roles and put to work. Perhaps some will even manage to pay their own taxes rather than living off the work of others. But even if they don't earn enough to pay taxes, there will be less taxpayer dollars going to support them!

AAR

"Abstinence works" - yeah, right. Just compare America's teen pregnancy rate to Europe's. Telling teens/young adults to practice abstinence is about as effective as telling wolves to practice vegetarianism.

But should government fund contraceptives? For those who can't afford it, yes - because it's much cheaper than paying to raise their unwanted children.

Actually I think it is rather Rovian of Hillary and Harry. The wingers screams of "Abstinence! Abstinence!" will surely drive the independents into the Democratic camp.

I don't need to back up my arguments.

Pretty much says it all right there. "As long as I believe it, I don't have to prove it." Faith before facts at all costs, right AAR?

RE: "Actually I think it is rather Rovian of Hillary and Harry. The wingers screams of "Abstinence! Abstinence!" will surely drive the independents into the Democratic camp."

Maybe it will - maybe it won't! If enough American taxpayers start to really think about it, maybe a few at least will start to think and say:

"You know, I have better things to spend my hard earned money on besides paying for someone else's condoms and sexual entertainment! If a person is physically able to use the condoms, they should be physically able to work an extra hour or two a week to buy their own or skip a movie, or some other item they wanted to buy with their own money. Why do I have to work extra hours or skip a movie so I can pay for their condoms? Why I should work the extra hours just because those who need the condoms don't or won't spend their money on them, or because they are too busy enjoying themselves and their taxpayer provided condoms to work for them themselves? Oh, and let's not forget, it is also the taxpayer's job to pay for their Viagra so we can provide even more free taxpayer funded condoms! Right on you liberals!!!"

Do liberals really believe that abstinence is 0% effective? Perhaps it only prevents a few thousand or so abortions or unwanted pregnancies. Is that too few to at least teach the concept in our schools? Can't you just "humor" us taxpayers and teach the concept while you are laughing at that "silly" concept? Does teaching the concept really do that much damage to the liberal agenda for America? Or would that mean less people would be taking handouts for their free condoms... which would be bad for the liberal voters who depend on their liberal handouts?

Does it really hurt the liberal agenda so much if we have a little less emphasis on sex in our schools, and how to have sex, and a little more on an education? I guess it does to a liberal!

And what will you liberals do when you finally manage to put more people on welfare and hand-outs than there are taxpayers to pay for them? Who is going to pay for your give-aways then? If your causes and agenda are so good, then why don't you spend all of your own money first before trying to take other people's?

AAR

Birth control prevents pregnancies, and if the taxpayers can fund bonner pills like Viagra (which they currently do!) then they can also fund contraception methods that will keep the population in check, and prevent unwanted pregancies from turning into unwanted births. Preventing unwanted children
(by preventing the pregnancy iteself, not through abortion) from being born to crack head mothers on welfare who the taxpayers would have to support is a great idea. I can promise you that having the taxpayers pay $30/ month now for someone's birth control pills or condom supply is much cheaper in the long run than paying for the birth of millions of unwanted children who will extract a much larger toll on society later (also at YOUR expense).
I totally support this idea.

Here's another thought for you liberals...

Liberals are always wanting to pass laws to protect us from ourselves. We have seat belt laws... we have infant car seat laws... we have motorcycle helmet laws... we have child endangerment laws... etc., etc., etc.

And what happens if we break one of these laws? The person is fined and might even go to jail.

So... why don't we just make it illegal for a person to have unprotected sex, except for married couples of course. If a person is found guilty of that, then we fine them -- and fine them big-time for any repeat offenses!

And how do we know that? Why, when they come in for their free abortion or welfare payments for a child they couldn't support!

And what do we do with those fines? We use them for child support and welfare. If they continue to break the law, we can even put them in jail and they can work a few years as some job earning money and putting it into the child welfare system too!

AAR

In Texas where I live, 50% of all births are paid for by the state (Medicaid babies), so we are already paying the hospital bills of half the pregnant women in the state.

We're also an abstinence-only state and our teen pregnancies, STD rates, and un-wed pregnancy rates are some of the highest in the nation.

That tells me that spending a little money up front on condoms and birth control pills for the poor along with teaching the full range of sex-ed including abstinence is going to save us a lot of money in the long run.

I never did understand why people think talking to kids about sex is somehow going to make them more sexually active. We talk to our kids about alcohol and drinking responsibly as an adult. Why shouldn't we do the same with sex-ed?

X

AAR I really can't tell what values you believe in?

You claim to believe in personal responsibility. Yet personal responsibility implies the freedom to make informed choices about one's life. By insisting on absitence only education you deny people the freedom to make informed choices about their sex lifes.

You claim to dislike abortions. You even make the claim

"Do liberals really believe that abstinence is 0% effective? Perhaps it only prevents a few thousand or so abortions or unwanted pregnancies. Is that too few to at least teach the concept in our schools?"

Its not that abstinence "education" is completely ineffective; i'm sure its better than saying nothing at all. But complete sex education has been PROVEN to be more effective and is used by all other developed coutries. Fewer unwanted pregnacies means fewer abortions.

You claim to hate taxes and social spending. However, the social costs of unwanted children are huge compared to the costs of condoms. Just as a immunizations are cheaper than dealing with disease like mumps and measles so is condoms much cheaper than unwanted children. This by the way is way the government pays for these for those too poor to afford them. If you hate the idea of government paying for birth control you must hate the idea of the government pay for immunizations. After all it follows from your own logic that if people are to irresponsible to pay for cheap immunizations and instead spend the money on movie tickets then they can deal with the cost of disease.

Perhaps an idea for your next ignorant blog.

AAR



“I don't need to back up my arguments. Liberals don't! “



You were encouraged to check your “facts” on pubmed. Twice. You can check Google or Wikipedia for “condom effectiveness”, but you will not. I searched for “liberal conservative pregnancy rates” on Google (to see if liberals are responsible for teen pregnancy) and only found data that contradict your claims. I guess the Internet is actually a liberal conspiracy (you can insert your lame Al Gore joke here).




“Those are my opinions, and I am not alone. “




Clearly you are not alone. Everyone who spends their time listening to Rush, Savage, Coltier, O’reilly, and Hannity sounds exactly like you.




Oh yeah, that would mean they are not your “own opinions”, wouldn’t it.




“It is the liberals not conservatives who are pushing so hard for free birth control, abortions, and no say or rights of parents in anything related to sex or abortions.”




The conservatives are always bringing sex up in the public sphere. Abortion, Gays, Lewinsky, Birth Control. It is a platform issue for the Republican party since the early 90s. Conservatives are always “pushing so hard” to make it a wedge issue. And you are watching that backfire, but you have no idea.




I could go on like this all day, but you already did that, and it did not get you anywhere. I think I’ll go read a book instead.

X_Man, paw, jonnieg,

RE: "In Texas where I live, 50% of all births are paid for by the state (Medicaid babies), so we are already paying the hospital bills of half the pregnant women in the state."

That's ridiculous! It does show that we have a real problem though. Are you "really" doing anything about it other than supporting free taxpayer condoms, free taxpayer supported abortions, free hospital deliveries, and more welfare? Are you happy that the state (taxpayer, you) are paying for them? Don't you have a better use for your money than to pay for others to have more kids to be supported by more of your taxes for their welfare?

If a person can't afford babies, then don't make babies... period, but don't tell me it is my job to pay (blackmail) for their condoms so they won't do the "wrong" thing! As one talk show host says "if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em! I actually heard one liberal who is so fed up with paying for other people to have welfare babies that she suggested having a permit or license to, as she put it, "breed"... and that was a liberal, a college graduate to boot!

And how many of the 50% of the births paid for by the state are to people who are already on welfare and can't afford any more kids of their own? How many are to illegal immigrants? Liberals can't figure out any solution other than to shift the responsibility off of those who create the problem and put it on someone else -- the taxpayers. Stop condoning and trying to justify their lack of responsibility. Hold them accountable for their own actions! Make them work extra hours to support their own kids. Don't take the wages of someone who did work overtime and use to pay for someone else's kids. Why am I expected to work overtime to support their kids, but they aren't?

If a person is already on welfare, don't pay them even more welfare as a reward for having still more welfare babies. I'm not saying the children will not be cared for, but as a start, make it the parent's responsibility to either find a better job, work more hours, or find friends and relatives who will support for their children. If they can't, then place the children in foster homes and pay that money to the foster parents. The parents can still visit and can have their children back when they can afford to take care of them, but stop paying and rewarding people on welfare to have even more welfare kids. Stop rewarding unacceptable behavior!

I guess you will argue that it is a person's [constitutional] "right" to make as many babies as they like or want, even if they can't afford to have them or raise them. It's THEIR right to have them, but MY responsibility to raise them. Something is seriously wrong with that picture. So, what is your solution other than provide free condoms, and if that doesn't work, provide free abortions, free delivery, and then more welfare!

How many kids do you think a person should be permitted to have at taxpayer expense and paid for by welfare? One? Two? Six? Twelve? No limit... it is their right to have as many kids as they can produce, even if they can't afford to take care of them? Now, if you say there is a limit, what do you propose to do if your condoms don't work? If you say there's no limit, then just how can you rationally justify that choice?

RE: "I never did understand why people think talking to kids about sex is somehow going to make them more sexually active."

For one, it makes people, especially children, believe sexual activity, even at a young age, is condoned and encouraged, even before they are adults. If everyone is casually talking about sex, even in elementary school, to include their teachers, kids think it is all right to start experimenting. If kids are being shown how to put condoms on cucumbers, what does that tell them? Go out and try it for real. Do the real thing. Everyone else is talking about it. Teachers are teaching it. Why shouldn't I do it too!

My parents made it very clear to me and my siblings that if we make any babies, we are going to get married, and we are going to work to support them. And we knew they were absolutely serious and would do just what they said! They didn't provide us with any free condoms either. That wasn't an option, but we knew we without a doubt that we had better not make any babies either unless we were prepared to pay the consequences. The results... five kids raised to adults, no condoms, no abortions, no pregnancies, no STD, and no costs to the taxpayer!

RE: "... complete sex education has been PROVEN to be more effective and is used by all other developed countries. Fewer unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions."

Fewer? How many fewer? Our schools have been teaching sex education now for years and what do we have to show for it? More abortions, more unwanted pregnancies, more teenage pregnancies, and more births to welfare recipients than ever. Kids who used to wait until the were in their late teens for sex are now starting in their early teens if not before. Check your statistics on how many kids are having sex in their mid-teens or younger. The statistics continue to rise... along with even more sex education.

RE: "... the social costs of unwanted children are huge compared to the costs of condoms."

Yes it is. So are you telling me that if we agree to ignore the responsibility issue, people's own moral values, and agree to provide everyone with free condoms, that will solve the problems with unwanted pregnancies. That will stop children being born to mothers or parents who can't afford the medical care to deliver them or the food to feed them? Are you telling me that we won't have anymore children born to mothers and families who are already on welfare and can't even afford the children they already have? Of course you can't tell me that, because free condoms is not addressing the real social problems.

RE: "If you hate the idea of government paying for birth control you must hate the idea of the government pay for immunizations."

Nice try, but that's not exactly the same.

In the case of immunizations, the child or person usually doesn't have a choice in avoiding the disease. They can't just choose not to catch the disease. If they do catch a disease they can spread it to others who will spread it to even more people. The more people who are immunized, the less likely the disease will spread throughout the community and possibly to everyone else. Immunizations not only protect those who were immunized but ultimately those who are paying for the free immunizations. At least I get something for my tax dollars!

RE: "Perhaps an idea for your next ignorant blog."

Well, if you can use your gray matter, do some real thinking, find a good solution to your ignorant liberal welfare system, and I won't need to continue posting my comments.

Until liberals come up with a real solution or let conservatives give it a try, I will do all I can to convince everyone I can to do something to fix your "ignorant" welfare system... period!!! I realize I won't make much of a dent (yet), and it's a lost cause for now, but maybe sometime in the future some rational thinking people will finally get a say and fix your system. It might even be someone who was influenced by something I said or wrote.

RE: "Clearly you are not alone. Everyone who spends their time listening to Rush, Savage, Coltier, O’Reilly, and Hannity sounds exactly like you."

Yes, good people all, and our numbers are increasing daily!

I will do all I possibly can to help them increase even more. I encourage everyone I can to listen to them, especially Rush Limbaugh, so why don't you liberals get busy and figure out some other acceptable solutions to your welfare system and social agenda, before we do?!!! Yes, we will have setbacks, and liberals will have their successes too, but we will continue our march! I am not opposed to welfare for those who truly need it, but I am opposed to the current system.

As Rush Limbaugh so accurately points out... liberals want to keep people on welfare, conservatives want to get them off welfare by helping them find jobs and ways to earn their own living. Try listening to Russ yourself. You might get a real education. Lots of liberals do. Some even switch to conservatives.

A little wordy, a little rambling, and not as well organized as I would like, but it's getting late.

AAR

Only rich people can have sex! That's smart AND practical.

amazing. dozens of replies and not a single one acknowledging that married couples have need of contraception, too.

abstinence-only education? i'd like to see how long married men are willing to put up with abstinence as their sole method of birth control. and while the cervical mucous method of natural family planning (a.k.a. "periodic abstinence") is far superior to the rhythm method, the probability of pregnancy during a year of typical use is as high as 20%.

First even though welfare is really outside the realms of this debate it always amuses me when people offer ignorant statements about it without really understanding it.
On wikipedia the follow
"In the United States, personal welfare is normally given to households with children, often headed by single mothers and even these households have only been able to access benefits for a maximum of five years per lifetime of the adult recipient since 1996." (Please note passed by a democratic president)

This refutes the whole argument of people having children for welfare purposes because the amount of time someone can spend on welfare is independent to the number of children people have.

Furthermore the argument of welfare babies is completely out of scope because birth control prevents babies.

You try to shock us with the statistic that 50 percent of all births in the Texas are paid for the state (source?). I agree that is unfortunate but would site the source of the problem is the horrible state of health care in America. The state unfortunately is forced to pay for a large percentage of all medical procedures because people can't afford health insurance. (For the record I strongly support the health insurance plan that Massachuets just passed and would like to note that if similar plans were passed throughout the country, the state wouldn't be forced to pay for those 50 percent of births).

Once again though inconsequential too the argument of birth control because birth control prevents preganacies.

You also try to refute my argument about immunizations. But I was assuming by your rhetoric that you Mr. Responsible taxpayer would have received the proper immunizations for you and your family, just as you so proudly state that you properly paid for their births. If that is the case then immunizing others really does not bring you any value ie. you receive no benefit because you are already protected.

Finally the prove about full sex education versus abstinence education comes from comparing abortion rates in Europe (where despite much less stigma they are a lot lower) to those in America where a uneasy hybred that actually currently favors abstinence is taught.

RE: "Only rich people can have sex! That's smart AND practical."

I would word it a little differently...

Only those who can adequately feed, cloth, shelter, nurture, love, and care for their children have the right to have children.

People do not have to be rich to have children. They may even rely on their family and friends for much of the financial support and the help they need. They may work two jobs. They may work overtime. People used to do that. Society used to demand that people take responsibility for their own actions. Now, we've make all to easy to accept handouts, welfare, and then demand more. It used to be a "stigma" and "embarrassment" to be on welfare. Now it's actually encouraged!

People do not have a right to make babies for the taxpayers and others to feed, cloth, educate, and care for just because they want babies. When they reach a point that they can not adequately care for any additional children, they stop having them... period. That may be zero, one, two, a dozen, or more.

It's time that Americans make it clear, however, that this is not acceptable behavior; it will not be condoned; it will not be tolerated; and "making babies" is not going to be a profession paid for by the taxpayers!

Those children aren't going to be thrown out to fend for themselves either. The taxpayers will take care of them, but their parents are a different matter.

AAR

paw,

RE" "AAR I really can't tell what values you believe in?"

Don't assume you know my values or what I believe from a my posts. I would consider myself to be conservative to moderate conservative on most issues, but it depends on the issue. Many, perhaps most of my values and basic principles are relatively firm; some are essentially fixed, but others are remain flexible.

My views and opinions range from liberal to conservative. I have a broad knowledge of and interest in many subjects. I know many things, but know also that there are far more that I don't know and don't have enough lifetimes to even begin to learn. As I learn and think about new facts and ideas, however, I do adjust my opinions and views accordingly -- becoming more convinced of my position on some issues, but changing, adjusting, or refining my position and beliefs on others. I do wish I had been more interested in English, literature, history, and civics when I attended school.

I am willing to consider and listen to logical and rational opinions and will often change or adjust mine as I hear, consider, and think about alternatives. Does that mean I will change my mind on all issues? No. Some I have thought about for many years and seen or heard both sides discussed. In those cases, I am much firmer in what I believe. What you may perceive to be my unwillingness to consider or "understand" another "solution" or position is because I have heard those discussions and justifications all too many times before and now dismiss them for the most part until I hear something new, logical, and rational.

I am more willing to discuss issues, consider alternatives, and work on mutually acceptable solutions than you may think but not always as much as you would like!

AAR

AAR I'm truly glad you are an open minded person willing to listen to arguments. When say I can't tell what your values are is not an attempt to stereotype you as a conservative or any other category but rather to suggest that your arguments are inconsistent.

(I do find your defense "Don't assume you know my values or what I believe from a my posts" unintentionally funny because the whole reason for writing is to convey our values and our beliefs)

Paw,

RE: "This refutes the whole argument of people having children for welfare purposes because the amount of time someone can spend on welfare is independent to the number of children people have...Furthermore the argument of welfare babies is completely out of scope because birth control prevents babies."

You refute NOTHING! You apparently live in some idealistic and theoretical world, and not the real world!

I don't know where you got your "education", but get off the Internet and get some real life facts and learning from the streets and people who do know some of what is going on. Get out on the streets and talk to a few real people in person. Don't select ones like yourself. Talk to ones who know some of what goes on with welfare. There are plenty out there if you want to talk about it. Talk to people who live in areas of high welfare and see how many children they have. See how many single mothers have several kids and maybe more on the way. See how many don't know for sure who the father may be for each child. Recently, I heard one man talking on the radio about his wife working as a nurse in a hospital and how many mothers on welfare who have multiple kids and come in for another delivery at taxpayer expense.

When you learn what goes on in real life, maybe I will listen to some of what you want to say. My bet is that you are half my age and I have lived much of what is only history or book learning to you... if that! I talk to people and see what goes on with welfare and government support of one type or another almost every day. I have seen personally how people who are fully capable of working don't because they don't have to, they aren't forced to, and or because it would reduce their "payments" in one form of another.

As far as your comment about my immunizations, I have had more than my share and probably some you haven't had when I worked overseas. Either my parents, my employer, or I paid for all of them to include my health insurance and medical expenses. I even have a current flu shot that I paid for. I was speaking figuratively about me, the taxpayer, getting something in return for their dollars.

Now, as Bill O'Reilly would say, you can have the last word. I'm through on this thread, but there will be other opportunities to discuss this subject in the future!

Oh, and if you have never listened to Rush Limbaugh, try it for a couple of weeks. You might find it informative and educational too.

laloca,

RE: "...married couples have need of contraception, too."

I agree. I only ask that they, and not the taxpayer pay for their own. If they want to enjoy their fun, then they should at least pay for the "entry fee"!

AAR

Thank you for suggesting i don't know the real world. I'll gratiously return the favor and suggest that you don't know the facts.

Everyday I ride the bus to work, the majority of the people on the bus are single women on their way to work dropping their kids off to work.

The congressional research service has done research showing that the number of single woman with children on welfare and on poverty has declined over the past 10 year as has the average number of years people have been on welfare (which is less than 5). The point is the whole idea that people support themselves through life by having many many children and then staying on welfare for many many years is an urban myth (i note that you have not used one fact or figure to support your claims but have relied basically like only your prejudices that you have gained through your years of experience in the "real world.")

Furthermore even if it was true the whole topic of welfare is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the topic of birth control. If you want to have a genuine argument you discuss the topic at hand.

The next time you feel the urge to rant why don't you pause, collect thoughts and focus on the topic on hand.

AAR - I'm interested what opinions you have that you would consider liberal?
Also, I don't understand why you can't see that spending a little money now on birth control (for those with no control) doesn't save a HUGE amount of tax dollars later. You've said yourself "Those children aren't going to be thrown out to fend for themselves either. The taxpayers will take care of them.." It seems like a stubborn stand on principle, which is fine, but then quit whining about paying taxes.

Hi AAR:
I am sorry if I missed the chance to get your response, so I'll just ask questions rhetorically and try and explore some concepts: (1) do you believe that government should collect taxes? If so, why? If not, why not?(2) assuming you agree that taxation is reasonable in and of itself, how do we as a country draw the line on what is or is not an acceptable expense? To answer my own (seond) question, I believe that good politics is compromise designed to benefit the United States of America - meaning that the lines should be drawn wherever taxes may be spent to maximize the benefit to the United States. Mennonites are pacifists, but I don't think the USA should stop paying for a standing army because mennonites do not believe in war. Why, because between pacifist Americans and militant ones lies the great majority of Americans for whom it seems wise to spend part of our collective tax revenue on a standing army. It is, essentially, a compromise position that, in this case, is widely held by Americans.

Move from this to more controversial uses of tax funds. Both the Clinton and Bush adminstrations have encouraged energy exploration in the Gulf of Mexico by reducing the royalties due on oil and natural gas owned by the United States but extracted by the energy companies. Here we might find larger groups that dislike the way taxes are being spent: on the "left" might be environmentalists and on the "right" libertarians. For both, there is no reason to expend the country's resources (here, forgone tax revenue) to encourage natural behavior. The libertarian might say, why subsidize exploration with my tax dollars when good 'ol economics will persuade the company to do so anyway when the time is right. The environmentalist would agree and add that the subsidy is particularly egregious because the cost of the extraction also should include the "hidden" environmental costs. And yet, both Clinton and Bush favored this royalty-reduction because they felt (or still feel) that the greatest benefit to America would be to encourage energy exploration - laborers benefit, investors benefit, manufacturers benefit, geopolitical strategy benefits, etc. So here, we find larger groups against a use of tax funds that is outweighed by America's best interests (or at least I think that's how the two administrations saw it).

So, finally, we turn to the notion at hand. Should tax dollars be used to subsidize birth control? I believe the dynamic is familiar, we have large groups of people against this concept. I would say that libertarians are against it as well as a sizable group of people that believe birth control is immoral or sinful (e.g. many Catholics). I am not sure who on the "left" would be against it, but I suspect you identified them (I think it was your post) as those who would prefer that government quite literally not concern itself with what happens in bedrooms. Let us concede that the opposition to such a subsidy is large.

In my view, the question is not "what is the size and vehemence with which the opposers hold their position," it is "what is the best thing to do for the country?" I see the arguments this way: CON - we should not pay for birth control because there is no need to subsidize behavior that is already in the best interests of Americans, e.g. those planning on having sex have an incentive to buy their own birth control if they do not want to have children (or should abstain from sex). I think this is a very reasonable position. PRO: we should subsidize birth control because there is a group of people who cannot afford birth control yet choose to have sex anyway. This too seems reasonable.

A government should be able to rationally conclude that, much as it might like to, it cannot legislate away risky sexual behavior. It might also conclude that subsidizing birth control among the poor (personally I think it would only make sense if it was tied to a percentage of the poverty level, say 200% of poverty on a sliding scale) would lead to fewer overall expenditures through the Medicaid program, public schools, and, perhaps, incarceration costs.

So, to conclude my thoughts, both positions seem reasonable to me, which brings me to my question, why the venom? Can you not see that there are rational positions on both sides of this issue? As I said, good politics is compromise - I dare you to look at the public positions of Democrats or Republicans and not find hypocrisy. So let's move past it and try and do what's right for the country which by the nature of the term "democracy" must include elevating ideas to national policy despite the personal feelings of individuals on particular issues.

For those who cannot afford birth control, the state should assist them in getting it. It is far cheaper in the long term to help pay for birth contol pills and condoms than paying for unwanted children in the form of emergency room costs, additional social service workers, WIC, welfare, juvenile halls, and prisons.

Regarding the state paying for abortions, why not? For the same reasons I stated above, we as a society should prevent the births of unwanted children.

Some people say homes can be found for all these unwanted children. If you watch local news programs in most metropolitan areas, there's usually some weekly news segment on children in foster care who need or want to adopted into a permanent family situation. If local government agencies are doing such a great job of finding the existing population of foster children homes, why does this programming exist? Evidently, the adoption rates aren't as high as they could be.

Another unfortunate example: many formerly wholesome Midwestern communities are now overwhelmed by the scourge of crystal meth, resulting in their social services providers being inundated by children needing foster care. Their systems were not built to handle such huge numbers. Pro-lifers' unwavering stance on abortion will only add to the current foster children population as well as the cost of supporting them.

I think the phrase is "penny-wise and pound-foolish".

Only those who can adequately feed, cloth, shelter, nurture, love, and care for their children have the right to have children.
------

In human history, there's numerous examples of societies where only responsible people have children. To emulate their examples, we should start by regulating this privledge of fertility. But since regulating it would require birth control, the best solution is to punish those dirty, sexually-active, poor people with unwanted children, who will grow and flourish in foster care.

Our society will benefit from numerous, impoverished children, aka a teeming underclass. Sounds like a perfect utopia of the right wing: cheap, disposable labor for every CEO; endlless revolving door inmates for corporate prisons; cannon fodder for every war-for-oil.

I think you probaby want to add "educate at their own expense" to your list, because that's another thing that our wicked, commmunist, ungodly country provides for free.

AAR,

1) The "pet programs liberals love to spend their money on" are what helped build the middle class in this country.

How's that middle class growth going under the "Reagan Revolution"?

2) Quoting Limbaugh might not be the way to persuade someone into using reason.

Rush limbaugh is an actor, paid large sums of money to confuse his liteners. This is why his listeners think their being ripped off by people on welfare, and not people in the corporate boardrooms of this country.
(BTW, from a strictly business viewpoint the money paid to Rush and his ilk is a good investment).

I don't doubt your passion and conviction about your tax dollars being wasted. I just think they are misplaced.

paw, tom, knuckles0810, Deb, Nik, Robert,

Noted.

AAR