• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pelosi Says Birth Control Will Help Economy

Economic Stimulus Package... does not need to include "birth control". That's my problem with her statement. Sheesh peeps.

It "does not need" to include anything, by this rationale.
And yet it will contain some things, and it won't contain other things.
Deal with it.
 
Economic Stimulus Package... does not need to include "birth control". That's my problem with her statement. Sheesh peeps.

Do you deny that people irresponsibly having unprotected sex and having children they can't afford is a source of poverty? Or do you deny that poverty is a serious leak in our economic growth? Or do you deny that plugging a serious leak in our economic growth is the same thing as stimulating the economy? :confused:
 
Most people in commited relationships do not want to use condoms and those are the people who are most likely to end up with an unwanted pregnancy.

How is that my fault? Or yours for that matter? Why does my money need to go to people too lazy to buy condoms? This is a matter of common sense. People in America aren't having ANYWHERE near as much unprotected sex as 60-70 years ago. For God's sake we have literally some of the lowest birth rates of any country in the World. It just doesn't make sense to spend money on this on the basis that poor people are breeding like rats because they simply aren't. We spend BILLIONS annually on poverty programs. These include the very issues Pelosi addresses. It just doesn't make sense to add more money to those already existing programs. 'Birth Control' is simply so cheap that 'being in a long term relationship' is no reason to not go out and get some. It's a reason to claim irresponsibility though and this is not a mentality the government should endorse by giving them money. We should keep the amount of money we give to these prevention programs at the same level. Not increase their funding on what are clearly false pretenses.

I am guessing she is aiming at women who are in that type of situation. Not really wanting to get pregnant, but maybe can't always afford birth control each month.

....Ummmm condoms? $6 a 3 pack...Seriously this isn't rocket science. I don't see why tax payer money needs to be thrown at something which is clear like black and white or a fat panda and I'm not exactly a fiscal conservative.
 
Last edited:
DRUDGE FLASH 2009®: PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY

Right, so let me get this straight, children are a burden on society, so we should limit children to help the country out.

Isn't that a Mao line of thought? What next? Mandatory abortions and euthanasia to any kid born or found in the womb to be mentally deficient/retarded or otherwise a "financial burden"?

Maybe we should limit couples to 1 child, think of the dough we'll save!

Every poor baby prevented is like money in the bank. Poor people are a luxury we just can't afford.

:mrgreen:
 
How is that my fault? Or yours for that matter? Why does my money need to go to people too lazy to buy condoms?



....Ummmm condoms? $6 a 3 pack...Seriously this isn't rocket science. I don't see why tax payer needs to be thrown at something which is clear like black and white or a fat panda and I'm not exactly a fiscal conservative.


It's not about the money or being lazy, people in commited relationships simply do not want to use condoms. If they have been tested, there is absolutely no need for them and seeing how they are $6 a 3 pack- For people having sex atleast once a day that's over $60/month.

Also the typical pregnancy rate for condoms is at 14%, that's only slightly lower than the withdrawal method. Compare that to actual birth control at between .01% - 5%. That's a pretty good difference and would make a bigger impact controlling unwanted pregnancies.




Pregnancy Rates for Birth Control Methods
 
It's not about the money or being lazy, people in commited relationships simply do not want to use condoms.

THAT IS CALLED BEING LAZY. If you can make the effort to get laid every day then you can sure as hell make the effort to walk over to your local pharmacy and pick up a pack of condoms on Sundays .

If they have been tested, there is absolutely no need for them and seeing how they are $6 a 3 pack- For people having sex atleast once a day that's over $60/month.

Really? There is absolutely not reason for them? What about unwanted pregnancies? Oh you can't afford a $6 a 3 pack? Fine. Get a 12 pack at $7. The cost of condoms actually DECREASE the more you buy. Again. Price is simply not a reason not to buy them. $21 a month is nothing.

Also the typical pregnancy rate for condoms is at 14%, that's only slightly lower than the withdrawal method. Compare that to actual birth control at between .01% - 5%. That's a pretty good difference and would make a bigger impact controlling unwanted pregnancies.

How many times did you get pregnant while using condoms? I'm willing to bet none and this goes for pretty much the overwhelming majority of women who use condoms. I'm willing to bet anything the number of people who actually(your link is an estimate) get pregnant through condoms is nowhere near 14%. So again I ask. What exactly is the reason for money being thrown at this?
 
How many times did you get pregnant while using condoms?

Once.


________
 
Once.


________

I call bull****. But hey don't get me wrong. I'm sure it does happen. Just not in the numbers where we need to throw hundreds of millions at it.
 
I call bull****. But hey don't get me wrong. I'm sure it does happen. Just not in the numbers where we need to throw hundreds of millions at it.

You have no standing to call bull**** on me. BOY.
 
You have no standing to call bull**** on me. BOY.

Ahahaha getting angry? Like I said. I'm sure it does happen. Just not in the numbers where more hundreds of millions need to be thrown at it ;).
 
Ahahaha getting angry? Like I said. I'm sure it does happen. Just not in the numbers where more hundreds of millions need to be thrown at it ;).

Angry? Whyever would I be angry?
When teenagers call me a liar to my face, it makes me giggle.

:roll:
 
How many times did you get pregnant while using condoms?
Once. That's pretty much all I needed.

However, I believe she is referring to birth control pills, IUD, tubal ligation, etc, etc. Condoms are the least convenient and least effective of the bunch. And, there are some (like myself) who are allergic to the latex and I hate to tell ya but lambskin condoms aren't $6/3 pack.

Regardless, if you're having sex daily with the same partner, the pill or IUD, etc are the better birth control options.
 
Economic Stimulus Package... does not need to include "birth control". That's my problem with her statement. Sheesh peeps.

I agree with this part. Plus I do not know if I got my wires crossed on this or not but I thought I had heard on the news that some of this stuff is slated to be sent over seas.

I really do not think any kind of increase in any type of foreign aid right now should come from a program that is about stimulating the US economy.

Hard to say what the real future is for this package is anyway. Apparently there is talk now of nationalizing the banks because they have already plowed through the bail out money that they got and it did not work. They are still in trouble.

That is going to cause a lot of people on the fence over these bail outs/stimulus type packages to side with enough is enough if they can't survive let em die.

Moe
 
Last edited:
Angry? Whyever would I be angry?
When teenagers call me a liar to my face, it makes me giggle.

:roll:

Teenagers? But hey 1069 here I'll explain why your 'once' basically solidifies my case :

If you who, during your young years, were not the most responsible of people only managed to get pregnant ONCE then how does that justify spending literally hundreds of millions because people are too lazy to go pick up condoms?
 
At least she didn't, as is rumored on campus on prof is doing, promote anal sex for straight couples to prevent pregnancy... and pay for it. I think I'd have too much fun with that one.

"Pelosi pushes stimulus for buttsex"...
HAHAHA man that cracks me up now.
 
Once. That's pretty much all I needed.

However, I believe she is referring to birth control pills, IUD, tubal ligation, etc, etc. Condoms are the least convenient and least effective of the bunch. And, there are some (like myself) who are allergic to the latex and I hate to tell ya but lambskin condoms aren't $6/3 pack.

Regardless, if you're having sex daily with the same partner, the pill or IUD, etc are the better birth control options.

AAAAI - Allergy statistics

# Estimates of the prevalence of allergy to latex allergens in the general population vary widely, from less than 1% to 6%.22
# Certain individuals, including health care workers who wear latex gloves and children with spina bifida who have had multiple surgical procedures, are at particularly high risk for allergic reactions to latex. Atopic individuals (those with allergies) are at an increased risk of developing latex allergy.15
# Approximately 220 cases of anaphylaxis and 3 deaths per year are due to latex allergy.23

The numbers simply don't justify spending hundreds of millions on this.
 
How about personal responsibility and stopping government handouts for baby production?

Sure personal responsibility is something that we are certainly lacking, but how do you propose we suddenly make everyone responsible? Do we just wave a magic responsibility wand in the air and suddenly the entire population becomes responsible and unwanted pregnancies cease?
 
Sure personal responsibility is something that we are certainly lacking, but how do you propose we suddenly make everyone responsible? Do we just wave a magic responsibility wand in the air and suddenly the entire population becomes responsible and unwanted pregnancies cease?

No, but you can quit rewarding them for such behavior, take a few years but the message will get out there and make a diff.
 
DRUDGE FLASH 2009®: PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY

Right, so let me get this straight, children are a burden on society, so we should limit children to help the country out.

Isn't that a Mao line of thought? What next? Mandatory abortions and euthanasia to any kid born or found in the womb to be mentally deficient/retarded or otherwise a "financial burden"?

Maybe we should limit couples to 1 child, think of the dough we'll save!

I agree it has limited use in an economic stimulus package. You can say its tied to the economy in some way, but there's no way this is going to STIMULATE the economy.

But this is more an over all symptom of how in general extreme liberals like Pelosi try to get their views in. They know they can't come right out and say it most time, so it builds over time. Want to get to a point where the government is controlling how many kids you're allowed to have? You don't start with that. You start by giving a ton of different ways that people with kids, especially lots of kids, get to get large amounts of government money. You then start up saying you need to use government money to fund ways for people to have less kids becasue it impacts the economy due to how much government money they get, putting it into the publics mind that "Kids = Economic Difficulty". And from there you continue.

This is the same way you build upon wanting "regulation" to then "government oversight" to then "government control....its the same way you can use global warming and the whole "better safe than sorry" argument to slowly move up to the point where everyone is told what cars they can have, what houses they can live in, how much things they can buy, etc.

And notice I am saying the extreme left wing. I do not think the END result of many of these things are actually what MOST liberals start out wanting or thinking they want. However, its for that reason that those on the extreme left have realized how to slowly but surely manipulate those on their ideological side gradually, slowly implementing things and increasing it step by step so its a gradual increase that begins to "make sense", so that when the final parts are put into place it doesn't seem like a large leap but a logical step.

I have two thoughts on this:

1) As long as people have the right to make a choice in birth control, I am not against helping them.

2) However, help should come from the states, not the Federal government.

Agreed, if it happens it should be from a state level.

Also gotta agree with hautey in general about the "lazy" factor. CAN condoms fail? Yes, but its generally a rarity and the majority of the times it does its due to 1) ignorance or stupidity 2) laziness. Are some people allergic? Yes, but its a miniscule amount of the population.

Additionally, if we're saying that we're giving birth control aid to people for the "public good" then the only acceptable form should be condoms as they're the only one that stops both the things that could potentially put a drain on the economy and the public....unwanted pregnancy and diseases.
 
How is that my fault? Or yours for that matter? Why does my money need to go to people too lazy to buy condoms? This is a matter of common sense.

Many people above and beyond those that are allergic to condoms simply do not like them, nor the perceived lack of intimacy when wearing them.

Like it or not there are many who refuse to wear condoms for various reasons, call it laziness, call it unwillingness to sacrifice a little sensation for protections sake, however the fact remains, many people do not and will not wear them, for those in a commited relationship it is MUCH more feasible to use other types of BC such as simply taking a little pill every day. NOt to mention condoms do break or slip off once in a while, I suppose you never had to play a game of "where the hell did that condom go" before?

Again this is a matter of practicality, and to recycle a line of reasoning from my last post.. what are you going to do wave a magic condom wand and suddenly everyone wears one?
 
Sure personal responsibility is something that we are certainly lacking, but how do you propose we suddenly make everyone responsible? Do we just wave a magic responsibility wand in the air and suddenly the entire population becomes responsible and unwanted pregnancies cease?

The Magic Wand you're waving seems to be money. So far the reasons for this part of the plan have been :

1. Couples in long term relationships don't want to use condoms.

- Bull****. It's not my fault you're too lazy to pick up condoms.

2. There are no reasons for long term couples to use condoms.

- Really? How about unwanted pregnancies?

3. Irritability to latex condoms.

- less then 10% of the population being allergic to latex does not justify spending hundreds of millions on this.

4. Condoms are expensive?

- Really? How? Condoms get less expensive the more you pay. 12 packs going as cheaply as $7.

So what do we have left? People who the rest of us are supposed to carry because they're too lazy and irresponsible to use condoms.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention (in regards to them being expensive) there are generally numerous places in cities that you can go and get free condoms if its that big of a deal.

As to "not wanting to" use them. My freaking tax dollars shouldn't be going to paying for your wife to get birth control because "you don't want" to use condoms because they're inconvient or it feels better without them.
 
No, but you can quit rewarding them for such behavior, take a few years but the message will get out there and make a diff.

I think the urge to have sex and the desire to procreate is just a bit stronger than the desire to attain government handouts as a reward for productive pleasures.

With or without the handouts the child is still a costly burden.
 
Not to mention (in regards to them being expensive) there are generally numerous places in cities that you can go and get free condoms if its that big of a deal.

As to "not wanting to" use them. My freaking tax dollars shouldn't be going to paying for your wife to get birth control because "you don't want" to use condoms because they're inconvient or it feels better without them.

I'm really surprised nobody's said I hate poor people yet. :lol: - Had I been bhkad or aquapub we'd have had a barrage of attacks. But seriously. There is no reason for this other then giving money to people who are irresponsible.
 
So what do we have left? People who the rest of us are supposed to carry because they're too lazy and irresponsible to use condoms.

So you would rather pay for their unwanted pregnancy with WIC, food stamps, childcare, welfare, section 8(becuase they are more qualified as a single parent), and child tax credits? FYI- you are already paying for their irresponsiblity by much, much, much more.

Also- I am not necessarily for spending all that money on birth control, but I would like to see the government help to make it more affordable and available to low income families and those without insurance.
 
Back
Top Bottom