"Are Women People?"

Condoms don't work 100% of the time, and while I want and could afford a child right now, I don't think it's the proper time for me to bring one into the world. I don't see that as being responsible, that's being reactionary.

"Usually 1:1" allows for 1.01:1 ratios. I've had more science classes (including overkill on genetics) than probably any 3 people with a BS in science.

The GOP doesn't want birth control, abortions, education, or welfare. Their solution? Lock 'em up or send them to war.

Even better promote abstinence. That will work.

I am not discussing the effectiveness of condoms, I am talking about the fact that people are leeches if their only choices are have unwanted babies or get someone else to pay for their BC. Does that concept really fly over your heads? IDGAF what people do in their bedroom, but the idea of being held hostage by non-contributors to society "Buy my BC or I'll get pregnant! Don't try me, I WILL procreate!!" is BS.

Yeah, we are held hostage by the dregs of society. BTW, not wanting to PAY for your BC is not the same as not wanting it, but hey, you gotta spread the lies...

youmustbenewhere.jpg

I think this site has gone through quite a few abortion threads in its history. Many of the people here are not simply pro-abortion. It's all very circumstantial to people. Most of us agree that nipping it in the bud via contraceptives is ideal, but sometimes life throws you a curve ball. Nobody is simply pro-abortion because they just want to revel in dead fetuses.

Copy-pasta from presidential candidates thread. (Has nothing to do with presidential candidates, just showing that Chaosx is correct here about abstinence teaching.)

"With the nation’s attention trained on the media’s breathless coverage of Super Tuesday, Utah’s legislature this evening quietly passed a bill requiring schools to teach abstinence-only sex education, or else skip the classes altogether.

Additionally, both teachers and students would be prohibited from discussing contraception and homosexuality in the classroom.

HB363 passed in the state Senate by a vote of 19 to 10. Utah’s House approved the bill last month.

Senator Stuart Reid (R-Ogden) said the legislation takes sex ed out of the hands of teachers “who we have no idea what their morals are” and turns it over to parents.

But Democrats countered that parents already had control over their children’s sex education, as they were given a choice whether to keep their child enrolled in sex ed classes or pull them out.

Under the new legislation, sex ed classes — if they are offered at all — must teach abstinence only, and parents are required to opt in if they want their child to attend.

“It’s concerning when now we’re trying to dictate morality,” said Sen. Ross Romero (D-SLC). “We’ve been discussing this as if every child has the benefit of two loving and caring parents who are ready to have a conversation about appropriate sexual activity, and I’m here to tell you that’s just not the case.”

The Utah PTA expressed vehement opposition to the bill. “I just can’t believe they did this,” said the association’s president-elect, Liz Zentner. “I think they’re going to have to revisit it in a couple years when the teen pregnancy rates and teen [sexually transmitted disease] rates shoot through the roof.”

It remained unclear if Gov. Gary Herbert would sign the bill into law or veto it. Speaking ahead of a House Education Committee hearing on HB363 last month, Herbert said he felt the existing curriculum “works pretty well,” but also said he personally supports abstinence as a form of pre-marital contraception."

http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/06/abstinence-only-bill-of-the-day/

Educate my children or I won't! PAY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL OR THEY WON'T GET EDUCATION!

Pay the firemen for me because I don't want to! DON'T TRY ME, I'LL BURN THE BUILDING DOWN!

You sound redic.

Are you aware of what medications you already pay for? Take a look at the list, BC should definitely be on that list, it doesn't cost as much as half the list, and it has one hell of a benefit to society.

Why are you taking my comments personally then? If you could afford a child you could certainly afford BC, so I am not talking about you. I am talking about people here who can afford PC's and FFXI subscriptions and probably a decent number of other luxuries but "can't afford insurance." I'd bet they could at least afford BC.

The lies started with this whole tax payers funding it nonsense. And abortions. None of which are actually true.

technology has not altered human gestation or homeostasis.

gestation period is the time it takes an organism to reproduce an offspring. Humans still require approximately 9 months to produce an offspring and its usually 1-2. Compare that to rodents. they produce in under 20 days and produce tons of offspring.

homeostasis hasn't changed either. Humans have very sensitive systems. u still require 98.6~F to surive. You still require a ph7~ to survive.

Sulfolobus can survive at ph2. and produce enzymes that can adjust the ph more effectively they can also change the pH of their external environment as needed by producing sulfuric acid. They can survive temperatures up to 190F and 6000 atmospheres. I want to see a human survive those conditions :)


Your assuming ONLY natural selection is taking place, with that ratio. And i have more than a B.S. in science lol My specialty is infections bacteria so our populations genetics backgrounds my differ a bit since i tend to use viral models mostly.

that's an outry lie

Of all the states you DON'T pick to discuss the moral pulse of the country at large, Utah is at the top of the list. And of course abstinence works when practiced.

The very fact that it was considered at all, let alone passed, speaks to a very skewed view of sex and birth control in our government. And that's terrifying.

I could, and want one, but personally I am not ready for one. I'm not taking your comments personally, I just find the idea that opposing people who can't afford BC BC because you don't want to pay for it, while you don't have a problem paying for a lot worse and more expensive stuff, confusing. I'm trying to figure out what's making your mind come to this conclusion.

No, it's not. Here in Texas Rick Perry is de-funding PP (meaning it WAS funded publicly) and Obama is threatening to withhold funding to other women's health programs in retaliation (so I guess Obama hates women).

Here is a snippet from the wiki showing you are misled.

Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, amending the Public Health Service Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information. The law enjoyed bipartisan support from liberals who saw contraception access as increasing families' control over their lives, and conservatives who saw it as a way to keep people off welfare. Nixon described Title X funding as based on the premise that "no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition."

You have to realize that there are people posting in here that are from outside the states where things are different but yes here in the states that was big time misinformation being peddled lol.

All of the GOP candidates stand in lockstep on their positions regarding birth control and reproductive rights.

I won't count Ron Paul because Republicans don't even want to acknowledge Ron Paul.

BC is not 100% either but the point is made when people realize that they a) don't want one or b) aren't ready yet and take appropriate measures.

Well you were using your own situation to defend people in different situations. I said it makes good financial sense, but the idea that by choosing whether we pay a little for someone or a lot for them is not a situation we should be proud of, nor should we use that as a starting point to pay for ALL BC for all women. Additionally, we are creating a generation of people who think that everything they think they need or want is someone else's responsibility. Those same people then keep telling anyone who will listen how strong and independent they are. It's like we are raising a generation of American Idol auditionees who are tone-deaf as hell and think they sound like Whitney Houston.

While plan parenthood as an organization does receive public funding it does not devote any of those public resources to abortions and that is legaly mandated.They actually have to show on their books that this is true so it is a lie when anyone says that abortions are publicly funded anywhere in the states. Some people would like you to believe just because they are publicly funded that this allows them to stay afloat and therefore able to do it in the first place but thats another story. When people come out and say that abortions are publicly funded though that is a flat out lie lol.

No, what we realize is that Congress has ZERO authority to tell an insurance company what it must cover, and is EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED from telling a religious institution that it must pay for something to which it is diametrically opposed. Not only that, but saying the BC is just spread into the risk pool and magically disappears is akin to saying "the taxpayers don't pay for it, the government does." Additionally, when (and if) Obamacare sets in it WILL be spread to all taxpayers.

Considering the teen pregnancy rate and STD rate INCREASED as abstinence-only education was removed, I think "terrifying" is a poor choice of words.

Citation needed, because that's a crock of ***.

Yes it is. No public funds go to abortions, it's illegal for them to.

Pull your head out of the hole it's buried in as you're severely misinformed about many things.

The GOP is a bunch of right winged religious nut balls who have no understanding of the principles they themselves preach ie: constitution and should all be tried for crimes against the US.

So should some of the Democrats but that's another story.

Yeah what I meant was all they tried to do was include birth control for people who already pay into their insurance.

Planned Parenthood is another issue. They already have shown that they refer people who to go to for abortions, not actually pay or perform them themselves.

As for birth control, they've been doing it since what the 1980's and now suddenly it's a problem? Public funding for them is something like under $100 million and constantly being slashed. We give more money (in the billions) to people who want to kill us (Pakistan for example) then our country's own female population.

Yet the GOP attacks women like their greater than evil, lol.

Do you have any idea how obamacare even works or are you one of the people that just goes "Oh no, now I'm going to be paying for everyones medical expenses now!!!!"

It's an alternative to raising said generation of poor families who can't afford abortions and all that fun stuff. You know the type, they got cars in the lawn and have a billion kids and probably do drugs and are raging alcoholics. Sure, they're not the best representatives of your country, but you'll notice all those years of not funding BC hasn't made them go away. I doubt BC will make them all go away, but I can guarentee it'll make an impact on their numbers as the years go by.

Then there's still the people that don't want children, there's the people who it is actually dangerous for them to try to have children, be it from disease or harmful to the mother. There's a lot of good reasons to make BC funded. Opposing it just doesn't make any sense to me.

There's no reason it shouldn't have the authority for either.

People are part of society first before their personal rights go into play what's better for the society takes priority.

health overrides this ill-manufactured concept of not being offended being a right.