...because it saves us money to do so. although I'd actually argue that subsidizing birth control is subsidizing good choices, unless you believe that birth control is a bad choice for someone to make.
like what?
right, but all of those other things you're talking about are immoral. giving folks the option to get birth control for free if they want it isn't immoral.
I really don't know what you're talking about. just because the welfare limit is set at one level today doesn't mean it couldn't be set at another level tomorrow. also, there are other programs other than welfare that are used to help the poor too. the bottom line, which you already know, is that this program saves taxpayer dollars. you're reaching.
right. the folks who disagree with me are the folks who say "no matter what we should never give anything to the poor for free, regardless of how it might benefit society." I'm perfectly fine with being on the opposite side of the issue as those folks.
Nope, the level, today or tomorrow with be set by what we can afford, what we are willing to afford, not the size of the problem. All those other programs come under the same funding restrictions. The bottom line is, it doesn't save **** for the taxpayer. Are you honestly trying to argue that if teen pregnancies drop the taxpayer will pay less come tax time? Naive.
Yeah, that only works if you believe your own script. You know that one you've built in your head that takes the place of having to actually listen to and understand others. It's advantageous of course, to build that mental strawman. So easily defeated, because you built it to be that way.
People sterilizing themselves isn't illegal.
And giving folks the option to get bicycles free isn't immoral either, but that isn't a reason to pass out free bicycles.
Why are we paying people who cannot afford kids to have kids again?
I'm legitimately confused by this. giving people birth control for free is essentially paying them not to have kids.
if teen pregnancies drop, there will be less children who require state assistance. that means less money the taxpayers will give out. that's not naïve, it's math.
Now you're just doubling down on the naiveté. The funding for the programs is set by budget. State and federal program directors know to always spend all of their budgets, every time.
So go give out all of the free birth control you want. Who's stopping you?
what points have anyone made that i have not acknowledged? in what way am i not listening to or understanding others?
I'm legitimately confused by this. giving people birth control for free is essentially paying them not to have kids.
whether or not that is the case has no bearing on the merits of the program. that is a separate issue that should be addressed separately.
whether or not that is the case has no bearing on the merits of the program. that is a separate issue that should be addressed separately.
i have a job i do that takes up a lot of my time. it makes more sense to run the program the way it's been run because it's been...you know...successful.
i have a job i do that takes up a lot of my time. it makes more sense to run the program the way it's been run because it's been...you know...successful.
The so-called "merits" of this program have been addressed and we have been discussing more than just the merits of the program.