kaneada said:
Once again, what is worse...paying for the unwanted children that are born into this world as the result of limiting or removing forms of birth control, or just providing birth control...this goes beyond the fiscal implications, you and I both know this. This has much more to do with the political rights idealism than it does with the cash flow. We've been providing life support for corporations that don't need it for a good long while, but considering solutions that allow a person to choose when or if they have children is ideologically abhorrent. We both know that this market is capable of creating a low cost market for birth control pills that would be profitiable to insurance companies...but due to corporatist principles, we treat corporations as people giving them a say in what is ideolohically correct and therefore do not have these solutions because corporate America is inherrently conservative... In short sex sells so we know there is a profitable market there...
|
A deeper question is how many of those unwanted pregnancies would exist if we weren't subsidizing poor decisions?
Hypothetically speaking, if we allowed legal paternal surrender, eliminated welfare, and didn't pay for abortions/birth-control the risk assoiated with making poor decisions would prevent the vast majority of people from making them. 95% of unwanted pregnancies would disappear because the vast majority of women would refuse to have sex with a douche bag who wouldn't stay around.
