Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Obama or Romney

Posted Aug 29, '12 at 7:44pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,069 posts

Knight

So you're willing to let people who actually care about the population pay for all just by themselves whilst you free ride?

Sure, otherwise it's not compassion.

You're all for education, yet where do you think the money from education will come from? The FR doling out cash?

The government already pays for much of our education. The good news is that there's a lot of room for improvement that won't cost a dime.

The point here isn't whether they can choose or not. The point made here is that we're willin to subsidise Viagra but not contraceptions. This is a curiosity, now one person's freedom is valued more than another's?

I'm not against insurance companies providing contraceptives, I'm against forcing them to provide contraceptives.

With the money now coming from? As a counter example, the state of Texas received about twice as much Federal funding as any other state for "abstinence only" education, yet had the highest rate of repeat births to teens of any state (24% of teens who have already had one baby have another in TX, compared to a national average for repeat births of 20%). Education doesn't work by itself.

This isn't proof that education doesn't work by itself. It's proof that lack of education and misinformation is dangerous.

As for the money to pay for the condom machines, schools can sell them for a profit or the machines could be installed using money from people who want to pay for them. If you want the government to take some of your money and buy condoms for teens with it, then you should go ahead and buy the condoms yourself and provide them. If you want the government to take money from everyone else and buy condoms for teens with it, you need to convince as many people as possible to join your cause.

The Pill, for example, can cost $850 per year when you include the cost of a doctor's visit. The patch and ring can set users back $1200 per year. And sterilization costs around $6,000 without insurance. Condoms ARE cheap but there are many reasons why people don't use them. Pills can vastly reduce menstrual related problems, they can even reduce periods. Pills are much more effective than condoms in preventing pregnancies.

If you can't afford the most expensive, go with something cheaper. Not all birth control is that expensive. Not to mention, many people are able to get their pills through Planned Parenthood.

 

Posted Aug 29, '12 at 9:06pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

Sure, otherwise it's not compassion.

All fine and dandy until we hit more political bumps and problems for the sake of values.

I'm not against insurance companies providing contraceptives, I'm against forcing them to provide contraceptives.

62% of the female population supports it; 55% of the population does. If "forcing" has to be "forcing" due to the phenomenon of imperfect knowledge, so be it.

This isn't proof that education doesn't work by itself. It's proof that lack of education and misinformation is dangerous.

And given that states do like to meddle in education systems, what are the odds that such bills will fully last before being watered down. Indeed what are the odds that education by itself will work? It's a very flimsy and risky bet to take.

As for the money to pay for the condom machines, schools can sell them for a profit or the machines could be installed using money from people who want to pay for them. If you want the government to take some of your money and buy condoms for teens with it, then you should go ahead and buy the condoms yourself and provide them. If you want the government to take money from everyone else and buy condoms for teens with it, you need to convince as many people as possible to join your cause.

They already did the convincing. There are almost no policies that will garner a full backing from the people. Furthermore, the machine idea comes out ad a tad bit idealistic. What if people who didn't lay now use the machines? Free rider problem emerges again.

If you can't afford the most expensive, go with something cheaper. Not all birth control is that expensive. Not to mention, many people are able to get their pills through Planned Parenthood.

It is within every woman's right to have as much control as she can over her body; getting pregnant is not a lighthearted affair. A ten percent difference in chance can lead to Faustian nightmares for all parties, especially if sex is frequent.

As for PP, theres a limit they can go before they are stretched thin. They had 4 million clients last year, and that's already on an exorbitant funding of one billion.

 

Posted Aug 29, '12 at 11:17pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,069 posts

Knight

62% of the female population supports it; 55% of the population does. If "forcing" has to be "forcing" due to the phenomenon of imperfect knowledge, so be it.

It's easy to support ideas in which coercion works in your favor. If you're a woman, you're more likely going to support such a plan because it benefits you. People often want the government to cater to their own lives, and they often think their lives that they live are the perfect models.

And given that states do like to meddle in education systems, what are the odds that such bills will fully last before being watered down. Indeed what are the odds that education by itself will work? It's a very flimsy and risky bet to take.

I guess we'll just have to find other solutions if education alone doesn't work.

They already did the convincing. There are almost no policies that will garner a full backing from the people. Furthermore, the machine idea comes out ad a tad bit idealistic. What if people who didn't lay now use the machines? Free rider problem emerges again.

The machines would merely have to sell condoms, not give them away for free.

It is within every woman's right to have as much control as she can over her body; getting pregnant is not a lighthearted affair. A ten percent difference in chance can lead to Faustian nightmares for all parties, especially if sex is frequent.

A woman has every right to have as much control as she can over her body; but she does not have the right to take from other people to obtain said control. Rights are personal freedoms in which you are allowed, not in which you are entitled.

We have to decide when it's okay to coerce people to pay for things they don't agree to. I just don't see contraceptives as something people should be forced to pay for. Then again, I think the same fore socialized healthcare. I believe we should help people without resorting to coercion.

 

Posted Aug 29, '12 at 11:52pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

It's easy to support ideas in which coercion works in your favor. If you're a woman, you're more likely going to support such a plan because it benefits you. People often want the government to cater to their own lives, and they often think their lives that they live are the perfect models.

Democracy is never fun if it works against you. We are now presented with a stark choice. Should we choose to respect the democratic ideals that anchor America, or only consider it democracy if it works for us? The Thais have a motto, that Democracy is only fair and just if my candidate wins. It's the incontrovertible truth; more people want something they get that thing. It is also the uncomfortable realization that most laws will be based and rooted in coercion if some form. The general consensus is that religion and law should not mix, yet there are millenarian groups that wish for a fundamentalist government. They are coerced into accepting the general standard we all stick to.

The machines would merely have to sell condoms, not give them away for free.

Well you did say that the machine would be paid for by proper who wish for such services. Who would want to pay for the initial cost if they van free reuse later?

A woman has every right to have as much control as she can over her body; but she does not have the right to take from other people to obtain said control. Rights are personal freedoms in which you are allowed, not in which you are entitled.

There are almost no such things as complete freedom. Someone is allowed to smoke, yet it infringes on the freedom of others to enjoy clean air. We have the right and freedom to enjoy the roads, yet we produce noise pollution that infringes on the freedom of people who want to rest and people with respiratory ailments. There is a limited amount of freedom, and it is the governments job to demarcate it such that the freedom each enjoys is maximized. Not at the potential maximum, but what is realistically possible so that it's "fair" for most.

We have to decide when it's okay to coerce people to pay for things they don't agree to. I just don't see contraceptives as something people should be forced to pay for. Then again, I think the same fore socialized healthcare. I believe we should help people without resorting to coercion.

Yet most women want contraceptions made more available. And it benefits employees too since it affects a workers productivity.

 

Posted Aug 29, '12 at 11:54pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

If they can free ride*

 

Posted Aug 30, '12 at 2:13pm

Mycal101

Mycal101

312 posts

Obama is the best thing thats ever happened to America. :D

 

Posted Sep 1, '12 at 11:48pm

Nightfang21

Nightfang21

104 posts

^umm no

I believe Mitt Romney should win. The incumbent president had his chance and America isn't getting better.

 

Posted Sep 2, '12 at 12:59am

Moe

Moe

1,780 posts

The incumbent president had his chance and America isn't getting better.

What chance?  The republicans in congress blocked everything he wanted to do.

 

Posted Sep 2, '12 at 1:07am

samdawghomie

samdawghomie

2,069 posts

Ron Paul. I believe that states my feelings on the subject. Or should I just say we should completely obliterate the current process and start over. Clearly the two party dictatorship we have now isn't working to well. *hears knocking on door*

 

Posted Sep 2, '12 at 1:28am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

Ron Paul is racist, anti liberal, denies global warming, anti tax, anti abortion, anti education and anti gay amongst others. Everything he detests is "Unconstitutional", even Federal Highways; he's a fake New Age Freedom Messiah who dangles the carrot of liberty in front of people, goading them into following him whilst he works on dismantling a system, but never proposes anything solid to cover the void that is left. His zealot like and dogmatic adherence to the idea of freedom over all will in the end just cause this sinking ship to just implode. Impractical above all.

 
Reply to Obama or Romney

You must be logged in to post a reply!