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.

But then people would behave like adults who take responsibility for themselves and they would tell the government to fuck off and that would be bad and sad.

I hope he is right at least for the 47%, he doesn't deserve any votes what's so ever. Not after, basically writing off nearly half of all American's (150 million people!) The best thing for the republicans to do now, would be to just withdraw from the election, before embarrassing themselves further! Leave things to the libertarians

No offense... but this sounds more just like a lack of economic knowledge.

I mean... lets start with 3 big ways Commodities speculators help people whoa ren't rich.

1)Commodities Trading for example lessens the effects of shortages... giving people much more incentive to sell in times of shortages, and to conserve in times of abundance.   This is really true in regards to durable commodities.

2)Additionally, Commodities traders provide great stability and liquditiy in the market.   Without commodities traders it would only be the producers and consumers.   Which means price variance in a market would be HUGE.

For example, say you have a Beef farmer and a Supermarket.   What the Supermarket would pay for beef would vary RAPIDLY as the "Buy/Ask" numebrs would be very far apart and he wouldn't really have any idea what he woudl pay week to week month to month.  Unlike now where prices stay relativly stable even with huge ups and downs.  Supermarkets can price their beef pretty accordingly, and adjust prices gradually.  

Without it, beef would either be very expensive always, or going up and down sporadically as supply went up and down sporadically.  Since such a thing looks really bad and tends to hurt sales a lot and mess with knowing how much product you'll move....   people will go with option A.

3) Thirdly, speculation benefits farmers.  Though granted mom and pop farmers are becoming less and less likely so your milegage for "helps people not rich" may vary on this one.    Since farmers can sell there crops in advance to speculators.  They don't have to worry about corn or soy or whatever dropping in value bankrupting them.   They only have to worry about the price of the commodity when plantng it.

So no Mom and Pop farm that sells to a speculator has to worry that when they plant corn today, they'll go bankrupt tommorrow because corn prices are suddenly going to plummet months after they planted the crop with no way of them knowing previously.

They can always pick a crop that will maintain sustainability. (Assuming their crops stay ok anyway.)

Though there are less mom and pop farmers.  They benefit more then factory farms... because factory farms never really fear being closed down because of a change in crops, and factory farms are big and broad enough that they can have many many different crops.

While your mom pop farms?   Not so much.

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.

It's a bit more expensive than that...I know becauise I pick up my wifes all the time. However it doesn't address my statement...are you stating you think the Liberals are ideologically wrong for wanting safe birth control available to women, or that their desire to provide it as a government subsidy is wrong? If its the later you stating I 100% agree with that.

Depends on the brand, I suppose.

And I mean the latter. I couldn't care less what people choose to do, but you can't claim "my body, my rights!!!!11" and then expect other people to pay for the consequences of your actions. You either own your body or you don't.

You both know it wouldn't work like that.

See: Romania.

Well martial law here we come.

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.