• 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

So the lefties around here have no problem with what is effectively an argument for the government to reduce the population to help the economy?

None?

I don't think it's any big secret that having too many children causes poverty, and being in poverty makes people more likely to have too many children. That doesn't necessarily mean we have to "reduce the population" as you put it. I have no problem at all to opening up our nation to more immigration.

JMak said:
BTW - what legitimate reason is there for the government to use tax dollars to subsidize contraceptives?

It's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for 18 years of welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and public education.
 
Besides the breastfeeding thing, you're assertion that it's untrue is misleading. It's extremely rare. The body just doesn't work that way.
So who's having sex during menstration?
 
So who's having sex during menstration?

Apparently people who cannot afford birth control but like to get it on every day of the month. In other words, partiers. ;)
 
It's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for 18 years of welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and public education.

This is where I'm coming at it too. I see it as a win/win situation for both sides of the isle, politically.

Decrease pregnancies = Decreased abortions
Decrease births of poor/uneducated = Decreased tax dollars being spent on those things you mentioned.

In the long term it will help the economy, overall.
 
Is there anybody left in America who can't afford a pack of 3 anymore? They're like $6 for a generic brand....I don't see why money needs to be thrown at it. What forms of 'birth control' Is she talking about? Condoms are like a buck each and I know for fact in Compton alone there are AT LEAST 40 places that will give em to you for free. So as much as I'd like to I simply don't see the sense in this. I mean....yeah birth control. Woohoo. But the most basic form of birth control is so cheap nowadays it doesn't even make sense for the government to put money into the matter anymore.



condoms are free in many states. :roll:
 
Would you rather dole out welfare payments for 18 years for the government to raise those kids?

This assumes that the kids will even be born to begin with. People during a recession tend to have LESS kids then when we're not in one. Providing money for something based on 'what if' is not a reason to provide more money to programs which already get billions annually but here I'll let history do the talking :

Shrinking Economy Puts Baby on Hold - Womens Health and Medical Information on MedicineNet.com

# In the early 1970s, a recession lasted from November 1973 until March 1975. The fertility rate, 68.8 in 1973, fell for the next three years, bottoming out at 65 in 1976, the year after the recession ended. It climbed again the next year.

# The early '80s brought more tough times. The economy was officially in a recession from January 1980 to July 1980 and again from July 1981 until November 1982. The fertility rate was 68.4 in 1980 and fell for the next four years to 65.5 in 1984. It increased again in 1985.

# In July 1990, the country fell into a recession that lasted until March 1991. The fertility rate, which had been climbing throughout the late '80s, hit 70.9 in 1990, the highest rate in nearly two decades. However, the next year, following the recession, it started falling again and declined to 63.6 in 1997.

# After the dot-com bust, the country was in a recession from March 2001 until November 2001. Again, fertility rates dipped the next year, falling from 65.3 in 2001 to 64.8 in 2002.

But explain why we should give money under 'what if' circumstances when history shows that fertility drops during recessions simply because nobody wants the extra burden during hard economic times?
 
Last edited:
I feel so proud to know that even though the liberal side of the arguments for this are so weak they feel like Jello there are still liberals on this site willing to defend such over the top irresponsibility.
 
This assumes that the kids will even be born to begin with. People during a recession tend to have LESS kids then when we're not in one. Providing money for something based on 'what if' is not a reason to provide more money to programs which already get billions annually but here I'll let history do the talking :

Shrinking Economy Puts Baby on Hold - Womens Health and Medical Information on MedicineNet.com



But explain why we should give money under 'what if' circumstances when history shows that fertility drops during recessions simply because nobody wants the extra burden during hard economic times?

"Economic stimulus" doesn't have to mean things for short-term growth. The entire concept of jump-starting the economy is misguided, because recessions inevitably happen as part of the natural economic cycle and our ability to solve the immediate problem is limited. What we CAN do is stimulate our long-term economic growth...and an important way of doing that is to reduce poverty. Therefore the fertility rate in various economic cycles is irrelevant. Unwanted children are much more likely to grow up in poverty (and are much more likely to cause poverty for the parents). Anything that helps prevent unwanted pregnancies is an excellent form of economic stimulus.
 
Last edited:
"Economic stimulus" doesn't have to mean things for short-term growth. The entire concept of jump-starting the economy is misguided, because recessions inevitably happen as part of the natural economic cycle. What we CAN do is stimulate our long-term economic growth...and an important way of doing that is to reduce poverty. Therefore the fertility rate in various economic cycles is irrelevant. Unwanted children are much more likely to grow up in poverty (and are much more likely to cause poverty for the parents). Anything that helps prevent unwanted pregnancies is an excellent form of economic stimulus.

What a way to :spin: this Kandahar. We ALREADY have programs in place specifically aimed AT unwanted pregnancies and prevention methods. What Pelosi is adding here is MORE money on the basis that we must target unwanted pregnancies during a recession. This is silly considering 1) fertility rates go down during a recession and 2) the programs we already have in place are not only in fine condition but do not need any more money.
 
What a way to :spin: this Kandahar. We ALREADY have programs in place specifically aimed AT unwanted pregnancies and prevention methods.

Not enough. Free condoms are not readily available in all parts of the country. The United States has the highest teenage pregnancy rate and the highest teenage abortion rate of any developed nation in the world.

Hatuey said:
What Pelosi is adding here is MORE money on the basis that we must target unwanted pregnancies during a recession. This is silly considering 1) fertility rates go down during a recession and 2) the programs we already have in place are not only in fine condition but do not need any more money.

She can spin it as recession-recovery if she likes, but the bottom line is that preventing unwanted pregnancies will absolutely result in a stronger economy in the long-term and the government should most definitely fund things like this.
 
Last edited:
Not enough. Free condoms are not readily available in all parts of the country.

Rofl what bull****. What parts of the country are free condoms not readily available? Nowhere'sville, Alaska? Placewithoutaname, Alabama? Seriously you'll have to come up with A LOT more then that if this is what you're using to support the argument of extra hundreds of millions for these programs considering the overwhelming majority of teen pregnancies happen in inner cities and with minorities who have free condoms readily available within those cities.

Teenage Abortion and Pregnancy Statistics by State, 1996

The District of Columbia ranks higher than any state on rates of teenage pregnancy (256 per 1,000), birth (102 per 1,000) and abortion (121 per 1,000). However, the District of Columbia, as a major city, has inner-city patterns of teenage reproductive behavior but no suburban regions or demographics to offset the urban statistics. Also, a large proportion of teenage women in the District of Columbia are black (61%),24 and blacks have higher levels of teenage pregnancy and fertility than other groups.

Of the states, Nevada had the highest pregnancy rate per 1,000 women aged 15-19 (140), followed by California (125), Arizona (118), Florida (115) and Texas (113). At the other end of the scale, North Dakota had the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in 1996 (50 per 1,000). Rates in Minnesota, Maine, New Hampshire and Iowa followed (56-58 per 1,000). In the states with the lowest rates, the ratio of the pregnancy rate of older teenagers to that of younger teenagers is relatively high, ranging from 3.4 in North Dakota to 2.8 in Minnesota and Iowa; by comparison, this ratio is 2.5 in the country as a whole.

There has been little change since 1988 in the states with the highest and lowest pregnancy rates. California and Nevada were among the top five states in 1988 and 1992 as well as 1996, and North Dakota had the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in all three years (57, 59 and 50 per 1,000, respectively). Minnesota and Iowa also were among the lowest five states for all three years. Between 1988 and 1992, about an equal number of states had an increase and a decrease in pregnancy rate. Between 1992 and 1996, however, the pregnancy rate decreased in every state except New Jersey, where it had declined 13% between 1988 and 1992, and then stabilized at 97 per 1,000. In 34 states, the decrease between 1992 and 1996 was 10% or more. Alaska and Hawaii experienced the largest reductions (31% and 27%, respectively); California, Delaware, South Dakota and Washington also had declines of more than 20%.

As you can see states with higher populations have higher rates. Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that in Cali you can't find a place that hands out condoms? What? Do we have to deliver the condoms straight to their homes and pay for the shipping and handling too?

The United States has the highest teenage pregnancy rate and the highest teenage abortion rate of any developed nation in the world.

Red Herring. As I've already shown the pregnancy rate DECREASES during a recession which is what this plan is addressing. But in any case I thought fertility rates were irrelevant according to you? :confused:

She can spin it as recession-recovery if she likes, but the bottom line is that preventing unwanted pregnancies will absolutely result in a stronger economy in the long-term and the government should most definitely fund things like this.

:rofl - Yes and if this what this money was for then I'd have no problem. But this money is for adding extra funding to programs that don't need anymore funding because they already receive billions annually. There is simply absolutely NO logical reason for this add on. None what so ever. The programs i
 
This is absurd stuff, from an absurd party.

That's the beauty of free speech, you get dregs like Pelosi, Reid, Conyers, Waxman frothing about their great schemes under the guise of "Hope" and "Change". Bit by bit Obama is quickly revealing he is as or more radical than the numb-skulls listed.

This is only the tip of the iceberg too... "we've only just begun".

[americanwoman;1057899959]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.
Not this cat. I'd like to see the other spending listed cut too.

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.
I think the government should close the programs. It's not the Fed's business.

If the states want to do it... OK.

I can see Madison, Hamilton, Franklin and Jefferson discussing this at the Constitutional Convention... how best to seize the wealth of one individual to give to another through the Federal Government... and then to provide the ways and means to subsidize behavior that falls under the purview of personal responsibility.

Why do libs instantly turn to government and OPM at every damn turn? What does "personal responsibility" mean to you folks?

What a waste.
 
Last edited:
This is absurd stuff, from an absurd party.


Why do libs instantly turn to government and OPM at every damn turn? What does "personal responsibility" mean to you folks?

What a waste.


Personal responsibility is good. If you are walking beside your little brother, and he steps out in front of an ancoming car, are yhou going to pull him back, out of the path of the car? Or are you going to build personal responsibility, and let him suffer the injuries of being struck by a car, so that he can look more carefully before crossing the street?

What is your estimate of he cost of raising a child?

What are the Federal State and Local goverments speing on Jails, Prisons Homes and SSI for unplanned and unwanted children with disabilities?

What is the percentage of Autistic and other learning and disabled children who are adopted? Become expenses of the Governments? Why is there no line item in the budget for the Government expense for Unplanned, disabled children?




..
 
Last edited:
Maybe those nice people with the bareback sexcapades and the unwanted pregnancies might consider placing their little burden up for adoption. :shrug: There are many couples who cannot conceive on long term waiting lists for adopting.

Government subsidies are available for Adoptions.

http://www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/cfs/210.pdf

Adoption is not an answer to the tax burden. Adoption is not an answer to the increasing World population, and the pollution that is caused by the population increasing faster than technology to handl polution and Global Warming.
 
Pelosi is a moron to even mention anything about sex, as the right will use it to derail and "muddy the waters", which is exactly what they have done. It still amazes me that the US right continues with the same old policies that have failed the US for the last 8 years.
 
Pelosi is a moron to even mention anything about sex, as the right will use it to derail and "muddy the waters", which is exactly what they have done. It still amazes me that the US right continues with the same old policies that have failed the US for the last 8 years.
A mass sponge migration over several centuries would amaze you in its magnitude too. I mean that. :lol:
 
Personal responsibility is good. If you are walking beside your little brother, and he steps out in front of an ancoming car, are yhou going to pull him back, out of the path of the car? Or are you going to build personal responsibility, and let him suffer the injuries of being struck by a car, so that he can look more carefully before crossing the street?

What is your estimate of he cost of raising a child?

What are the Federal State and Local goverments speing on Jails, Prisons Homes and SSI for unplanned and unwanted children with disabilities?

What is the percentage of Autistic and other learning and disabled children who are adopted? Become expenses of the Governments? Why is there no line item in the budget for the Government expense for Unplanned, disabled children?




..
You see, it's not the government's role to thieve money for the raising or suppressing of children.

That makes the cost argument moot at any level.

It's not government's job. If a state wants to take it up... fine. Federal...nope.

PS. Prisons are for the protection of the public. Prisons, military, policing, that is what government taxes are for. Check The Constitution. Social redistribution schemes and reproductive suppression or encouragement schemes aren't in there.
 
I don't think it's any big secret that having too many children causes poverty, and being in poverty makes people more likely to have too many children. That doesn't necessarily mean we have to "reduce the population" as you put it. I have no problem at all to opening up our nation to more immigration.

Does having too many children cause poverty OR does poverty cause having "too many" children? I am not convinced the causal relationship is as you present it.
 
Does having too many children cause poverty OR does poverty cause having "too many" children? I am not convinced the causal relationship is as you present it.

As I indicated in my previous post, it works both ways.

Poverty causes people to have more children, because they tend to be less educated and more likely to have grown up in large broken families themselves.

Having more children also causes poverty, because there are simply more mouths to feed with no corresponding increase in wages.
 
Back
Top Bottom