Romney doesn't care about 47% of americans

[kaneada]

HappySqurriel said:

kaneada said:

HappySqurriel said:

kaneada said:

badgenome said:

kaneada said:

I'm not sure how an Ode to abortion = dependency...can someone explain that?

Because it was all about how someone else should pay for your right to choose, otherwise war on women blargh!

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.

I'm tempted to ask how much of that is based on personal experience and a frustration with women since your post seems to be using statistics to create a positive correlation with your own personal experience....however hypothetical that data may be...

You do demonstrate my point though...limiting birth control adds inhibition to the female and in turn they behave the way they are "supposed to behave" which is just a personal ideology which has proven to have zero merit.

Women having sex out of wedlock, with multiple partners, none of which are necessarily even boyfriends, has been going on for a long time here in the united states and have been doing so long before birthcontrol was an inexpensive accessible option. Limiting female choice is not going to change that by anywhere near the margin you're proposing and it defies what America is about...individuality and personal coice.

You should look at the statistics ...

Since the 1960s there has been a dramatic increase in the number of abortions, an amazing increase in availability of birth control, and yet skyrocketing rates of single mothers living in poverty. Many things have changed since then but the primary ones are that the state has tried to eliminate the consequences of making poor choices.

Yeah and has religious indoctrination and education rates been tested against that? Availablity of birthcontrol does not mean that women have been educated on its existence, proper use, or that the education they recieved teaches that birth control is effective. Also consider the steep incline in population since the 1960's...that is going to inflate that number of 'poor choices.'

I lived in a primarily rural area for 14 years. I can tell you most of my friends were preganant before they left high school. None of them on birth control, most of them because their familes were either A) poor, B) highly religous and against birth control and or, C) completely unapproachable about sex and its reprecutions. Even worse, half were married before they could even go to college. Despite the non-availablity (either from lack of money or denial of permission) these women were still having sex and producing children they could not afford. So a good percetage of that number can be attributed to ignorance and or education.

Now you want to talk about me and my wife, both of which have had multiple sexual partners (mine being right around 20 and hers being damn near 100) both practicing safe sex either through use of condoms, birth control...I'm 31, she's 27, there are no children between us either from previous sexual relationships or the current ones...Now living in a major metropolitan area, most of the working professionals are around my age or younger...most don't have kids or if they do they were planned. Most of the girls are highly sexual and do not have comitted relationships. The reason? They simply don't have time, they are too busy working, but becuase sex is pleasureable, so they have their 'friends', a very loose term for whoever is cute, decent in bed, and they met at club wherever.

Get out of town a little bit (about 20 miles west) its an area high concentrated by Mexican familes, of which have meager incomes, non-skilled workers, who are mostly catholic...every single one of them have kids (between 3-5 on average.) Point being, your statistics may be accurate, but either they don't or you aren't addressing all the factors which may be because you didn't consider them or because you don't want to consider them.

Correlation is not causation.