- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 6,902
- Reaction score
- 4,825
- Location
- Space Coast
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Blasphemy!The one with Tommy Lee Jones reading the newspaper is better, but yeah.
Blasphemy!The one with Tommy Lee Jones reading the newspaper is better, but yeah.
I love how liberals are using the downside of liberal programs to promote more liberal programs. It never ceases to amaze me that liberals don't find that logic flat out retarded.
Condoms fail, quite often actually. By not offering condoms, you may discourage sex itself.Let's see, the cost of a condom or the cost of a child on social services?
It never ceases to amaze me how such a simple concept is so very difficult for so many to grasp.
You may not want to pay, but the fact is you will if they get pregnant.
Unfortunately you and other taxpayers foot the bill for sexual responsibility quite frequently. If the distribution of contraceptives was shown to lower said burden, would that alter your viewpoint?
Condoms fail, quite often actually. By not offering condoms, you may discourage sex itself.
Yes, %12 is quite often. Given that most teenagers would be screwing like bunny rabbits if they could legally and freely purchase a limitless supply of condoms. I don't understand your "no conscience" statement, do you really believe that most teenagers willingly have unprotected sex? No, they do not. By giving free access to condoms, you encourage more sexual activity, and with the %12 abysmal failure rate, you may have more pregnancies and/or STDs.12% is "quite often"? If they work 88% of the time, they save taxpayers money do they not?
As to "discouraging sex? Really? Are you freaking serious? A stiff prick has no conscience
I love how liberals are using the downside of liberal programs to promote more liberal programs. It never ceases to amaze me that liberals don't find that logic flat out retarded.
Is it possible for you to make your point without using the word retarded? It speaks volumes of your limited intellect.
Whether you agree with the distribution of condoms or not is frankly irrelevant unless the current social programs are overhauled. That was the point.
Yes, %12 is quite often. Given that most teenagers would be screwing like bunny rabbits if they could legally and freely purchase a limitless supply of condoms. I don't understand your "no conscience" statement, do you really believe that most teenagers willingly have unprotected sex? No, they do not. .
Condoms fail, quite often actually. By not offering condoms, you may discourage sex itself.
No, your point was that if I want to lower cost created from the safety net then I must support an extension of that safety net. Why not just remove the damn net if that is my goal?
You're kidding, right?By not offering condoms, you may discourage sex itself.
Why is the word retarded in that context a problem again?
No, your point was that if I want to lower cost created from the safety net then I must support an extension of that safety net. Why not just remove the damn net if that is my goal?
Yes, %12 is quite often. Given that most teenagers would be screwing like bunny rabbits if they could legally and freely purchase a limitless supply of condoms. I don't understand your "no conscience" statement, do you really believe that most teenagers willingly have unprotected sex? No, they do not. By giving free access to condoms, you encourage more sexual activity, and with the %12 abysmal failure rate, you may have more pregnancies and/or STDs.
Really? You're going to tell me my point? Priceless.
Do you seriously believe this? That is simply not true. Many teens are afraid of sex. Even if they do it once or more, they still don't want to "screw like bunny rabbits" just because of their being teenagers. This truly is a myth.
A lot of kids do it simply because of peer pressure. :shrug: Whether that be pressure from a boyfriend/girlfriend or because they just want to fit in with their friends who have already done it. Other reasons as well of course, but I would place this one high up on the list, along with plain old curiosity.
No, they can get their ass down to the store and pay for their own condoms.
Society should make people improve themselves by letting them suffer for their own poor decisions. Doing such either improves the individual, and thus society as a whole, or at least doesn't make others take any burden they don't deserve.
This also goes back to people saying what haexperiments ppens in their bedroom is only their business, hence it is only their responsibility if they want/need condoms.
Why is it the government job to give people what they need or want? I don't happen to find that welfare in this form or any other form is an improvement. In this example, all it appears to do is shift responsibility from the target, to the people around the target. I have no responsibility to make sure these children use condoms or have condoms in their possession. I have no reason to consider what they want or need something that I must concern myself with. If the kids need condoms they can either get down to the store and buy themselves some or get mommy and daddy to give them some. I have no reason to be involved in it.
I suppose you are against public schools and "slow children" signs and public parks also.
Many kids fear, often legitimately, that if they go to the store they will be spotted by an adult who will rat them out. That is why they should be available to high school kids in school attached to a pamphlet on how to use them properly and and an explanation the risks of breakage and diseases that condom do not necessarily prevent.
Know what else discourages teen pregnancies? Telling teenagers that if they get knocked up, the government won't support them and they're SOL.
That also has the benefit of being cheaper to the taxpayers, and beneficial to society overall if we decide to employ Soylent Green.