Quote:You say,

 

"...if you want to tell me it's a women's choice what to do once pregnant don't turn around and tell me it's society's responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant."

 

But someone else would say, "if you want to tell me it's not a women's choice what to do once pregnant don't turn around and tell me it's not society's responsibility to help her make sure she doesn't get pregnant."

 

If we have to pay for someone's birth control, we should have say in what they do if they become pregnant. Eric made a great point. You can't tell me to stay out of it and then make me responsible for making sure it doesn't happen. Your second argument isn't relevant since that isn't the conversation we're having here. I think many people would be OK with funding birth control if it meant forbidding abortions. 

 

Quote:Absolutely that's what I'm asking you to do.  But the threat of force should not be necessary, because you should want to do it.  

 

Why should we want to? We're paying for, what feels like, too much as it is... I WANT to pay for solutions to world hunger, but that isn't practical. I WANT to pay for solutions to cancer, but that isn't practical. I WANT to pay for solutions to <INSERT PROBLEM HERE>, but that isn't practical... so I wont. I want to fix a lot of things, but simply paying a little bit more wouldn't fix any of it. We pay enough as it is so why aren't the problems fixed?

 

 

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.  

 

This is where we disagree.

 

You're putting the responsibility on the tax-payer / insured to pay for those that are causing the problem. I don't completely agree with the libertarian point-of-view, but I believe the idea that it isn't their problem will factor in here. We shouldn't place the onus the taxer-payer. If we stop making it so appealing to be on government assistance, then we'd stop having people trying to stay on it. I work in the ghetto, and I enter too many homes on government assistance (daily). You can't believe how many people have told me that they wont apply for a job because their benefits haven't ended, or that that they "need another baby, so [they] can" afford to move out of their home and into a nicer one. That's a problem, and many people think those are the outliers when, from my experiences, have been the average. 

 

The libertarian doesn't want you to take money out of their pockets, so I don't know how you can make that argument. 

---