View Poll Results: Should the country (taxes) pay for women's contraception?

Voters
117. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    45 38.46%
  • No

    72 61.54%
Page 8 of 50 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 491

Thread: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

  1. #71
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,147

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Donahue View Post
    You're obviously too young to know any better but it is only within the last few decades these things have become common place. Not only did people manage to make it out of high school before getting pregnant but they even managed to make it into long lasting marriages and financial security before doing so. For most of this country's history being a "single parent" meant your spouse passed away. Despite the nanny state being a relatively new idea, these people still managed to work, provide for their families, and raise them.

    For the life of me I cannot figure out what would make you think people reproduce more often today than they did throughout history.
    You're obviously too uneducated to know better, but women were being married off much younger and teen pregnancy wasn't seen as a bad thing as long as the man who helped you get there was willing to marry you. No particular importance was placed on women's education.

    Pregnancy rates were actually higher, but so were miscarriage and infant mortality rates, and statistics were not as widely disseminated as they are today. Also, women who bore "bastard" children were hidden away by their families and sometimes even moved, which made them less publicly visible. The child was likely to be given up for adoption, or raised as a child of the grandmother. Single mothers often moved back home or quickly re-married.

    Marriages did tend to last, that is true -- but they were much more likely to be dead marriages, or even abuse marriages. The ease of divorce reduced that. I'd much rather have high divorce rates than high abuse rates, wouldn't you?

    And finally, I never said people reproduced more now. I just said comparing rates of reproduction to distant history is ridiculous, because people died so young that they never had the chance to have more than a couple healthy children.
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 10-15-12 at 12:46 PM.

  2. #72
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    The reason why we have welfare is because people in this country decided it was immoral and unethical to force people to forever live in squallor due to no fault of their OWN actions. In this day and age the actions of a single smarmy businessman can end and entire family's life - unacceptable . . . but our advance and changes in our economy, business world and government have made it so.

    We turned a leaf - and no matter how much some people would just love to digress - we won't.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    What was the average life expectancy for a woman in the 1950's?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    now. I just said comparing rates of reproduction to distant history is ridiculous, because people died so young that they never had the chance to have more than a couple healthy children.

  4. #74
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,147

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    What was the average life expectancy for a woman in the 1950's?
    I wasn't talking about the 1950's. That's not distant history, is it.

    And if you think women of the 50's didn't use contraception and abortion, you're deluded.

    But to answer your question, it was about 70 for women. Fertility rate was around 4 live births per woman. Today, it's about 80, with a fertility rate of just over 2.

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Some people who are on welfare are at fault. Nonetheless, I haven't seen anyone, on this thread, argue to end welfare altogether. Many oppose paying for other people's contraceptives, which is a separate issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    The reason why we have welfare is because people in this country decided it was immoral and unethical to force people to forever live in squallor due to no fault of their OWN actions. In this day and age the actions of a single smarmy businessman can end and entire family's life - unacceptable . . . but our advance and changes in our economy, business world and government have made it so.

    We turned a leaf - and no matter how much some people would just love to digress - we won't.

  6. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Some women used contraceptives in the 1950's. They didn't become widely available until after 1965.

    The entire concept of the family and female sexuality changed at that time, hence the whole women's liberation movement of the 60's/70's.

    I bring it up to point out that family planning was possible before the widespread availability of contraceptives.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    I wasn't talking about the 1950's. That's not distant history, is it.

    And if you think women of the 50's didn't use contraception and abortion, you're deluded.

    But to answer your question, it was about 70 for women. Fertility rate was around 4 live births per woman. Today, it's about 80, with a fertility rate of just over 2.

  7. #77
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,892

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Krystov View Post
    I say no. Being able to get these things at the expense of others not only enables bad behavior, but reinforces the entitlement ideology. Men and women should take responsibility for their decisions, not get a free ride to be irresponsible.
    Yes. A new study released this month shows free birth control significantly lowered the abortion rate.


    When more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years, abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate, according to a new report by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis researchers.

    From 2008 to 2010, annual abortion rates among participants in the Contraceptive Choice Project -- dubbed CHOICE -- ranged from 4.4 abortions per 1,000 women to 7.5 abortions per 1,000. That’s far less than the 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women nationwide reported in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available.
    Advertise | AdChoices

    Among teen girls ages 15 to 19 who participated in the study, the annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 girls, far below the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls the same age.
    And, if you are a fiscal conservative, it is important to lower the rate of unplanned pregnancies because:
    According to a 2011 study from the Guttmacher Institute, unplanned pregnancies costs the United States a conservatively estimated $11 billion per year.
    Further:
    “It’s hard to imagine how politicians wouldn’t like to spend a dollar to save four,” Trussell said. As to the objections like those of White, he concluded that “it makes no sense whatsoever. Regardless of your views on abortion, virtually everybody says preventing unintended pregnancies is smart.”
    http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...udy-finds?lite

    So, yeah.

  8. #78
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    What was the average life expectancy for a woman in the 1950's?
    This is good it touches on things that have improved life expectancy worldwide. . . one such very important factor are immunizations to protect against diseases that can be deadly - like the measels.

    In the 1950's the average life expectancy was 50 years for developed countries - 33 years for developings countries - and 28 years for undeveloped countries.

    Projections at the time of this briefing were for 2005 - putting 30% of deaths are cardiovascular - 30% are Communicable diseases including maternal and perinatal causes as well as nutritional deficiencies.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  9. #79
    Professor
    pdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Searching for answers.
    Last Seen
    06-30-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,969

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    I agree with everything but this. We should be doing everything we can to encourage people who are married and financially stable to have more children, and the reversals are far far more expensive than the initial procedures. Paying for reversals not only encourages people to get the procedure done in the first place, but it allows people to reverse it when the time is right.
    While I think this is toeing a dangerous line, at least the logic is sound. Anybody that hasn't seen foul, crude, obscene, and tragically true "Idiocracy" should go rent it now :P.

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Adam Smith remarked that "the most decisive mark of the prosperity of any country is the increase of the number of its inhabitants."

    Livi-Bacci observed, "All things being equal, population increase leads to increased per capita production."

    Mark Steyn notes in America Alone, "There is no precedent in human history for economic growth on declining human capital."

    Simon Smith Kuznets won the Nobel Prize in economics for his theory of "tested knowledge." As Kuznets explained: "More population means more creators and producers, both of goods along established production patterns and of new knowledge and inventions."


    So much for the theory that population control is good for society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    And, if you are a fiscal conservative, it is important to lower the rate of unplanned pregnancies because:


    Further:


    Free birth control cuts abortion rate dramatically, study finds - Vitals

    So, yeah.

Page 8 of 50 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •