Quote:Who's stopping abortions?!?  :blink:

 

Sure it'd be more cost effective to force people after 2 babies to be sterile let's go with China's 2 baby policy we're broke. You get 2 after that we make you sterile problem solved right?

 

Again everything is about precedents, you're asking government to force people and companies to pay for a medical procedure regardless of their opinions about the procedure. 

 

Preventing pregnancies is fine, I support it, hell I practice it! But forcing everyone else at the threat of government to pay for it is a different matter. Doesn't matter if birth control cost pennies on the dollar it's not a question of cost effectiveness, it's a question of power. Government will ALWAYS find justice causes and cost effective ways to increase their power. 

 

You see, Eric, you talk about me forcing you at the point of a gun to provide birth control for anyone who wants it. 

 

But at the same time, you would point the gun at me to provide the taxes to pay for police, courts, welfare, and prisons.   You don't want to be forced to pay to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but you want me to help you pay for all the consequences of not providing birth control. 

 

Again I ask you, which of these two options would cost less, which one would be a more limited use of government, in line with your libertarian leanings? 

 

A ) Free birth control for everyone who wants it. 

 

B ) Dealing with all the consequences of unwanted pregnancies. 

 

Is abortion murder?  You don't want to prevent murder?   And if there are no abortions, won't a whole lot of these unplanned and unwanted babies wind up being a huge cost to society, far far greater than the cost of free birth control?  

 

 

 

Any libertarian, anyone who wants to limit the size and scope of the government, would choose A.  

---