Quote: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.

To start with I'm all for ending welfare it's not me asking you to pay for welfare.


I'll say it again if you think providing tax payer birth control does anything other then give goverent more power your not paying attention.


Abortion and birth control are two different issues, one is dealing with the creation of a life the other the ending of a life.


If the premise is we should prevent life so it's never ended and will cost less then unwanted babies then sterilization should be your plan not birth control.


Would you support forcing people on welfare with more then 2 babies to be sterilized in order to keep welfare?


Edit: when you try to use government to limit government you get more government.

---