Not much at all.  That's why it is so cost effective to provide it free of charge.  

 

Water is less than 3 cents per gallon, it should just be free.

 

Power is less than 29 cents per watt, it should just be free.

 

Bananas are only 69 cents a pound, they should just be free.

 
Gas is only $3 a gallon, it should just be free.

 

Blue Moon is only $8 for a sixer, it should just be free.

 

The societal impacts of not having these things are far more important than simple birth control.

 

Of course, "Free" doesn't mean "Free", it just means someone else pays for it besides me.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I doubt that would work very well. Career welfare mothers wouldn't want to give up their source of income. Another baby = more freebies.

 

Which dovetails into the second half of my evil plan, mwahaha.  Actually, I've proposed on here before that welfare assistance should be meted out like dependency allowances for the military.  Regardless of how many dependents a service member has, they receive one set allowance amount.

---

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.  

 

"Pay for my neighbor's sex habit..."  Do you really think people will stop having sex if they don't have birth control?   I have news for you, people have sex, and they have sex a lot, and your paying for their birth control has nothing to do with it.  Your choice is to either pay for their birth control or for there to be lots and lots of abortions, legal or illegal, and lots and lots of unwed mothers going on welfare, and lots and lots of young men committing crimes because they didn't have a father growing up.  

 

Yes, you should absolutely want to pay for their birth control.   It's a part of protecting life and liberty, yours, hers, mine, and the unwanted, unplanned babies who get aborted.  

 

For gosh sakes, I cannot understand the logic of wanting to reduce abortions but not wanting to make every effort to provide people with birth control.   Pro-life people talk about a MILLION MURDERED BABIES A YEAR, and yet these same people do not want to do the one simple thing that would reduce that: GIVE PEOPLE BIRTH CONTROL.  

 

GIVE IT TO THEM.  Don't even charge them for it.  Have the taxpayers provide it for free!  Because right now, the choice is between the small cost of providing everyone with birth control, or having lots and lots of abortions and out of wedlock babies.  

 

This kind of thing makes me wonder if politics has anything at all to do with solving problems.   These days, it seems like it has more to do with raising money and keeping politicians and their employees employed, think tanks funded, advocacy groups in business, news channels and websites making money.  If we actually solved problems, a whole political industry would shrink. 

 

it cost the tax payers way more money to deal with obesity in America. Why don't we just make food that's causing the obesity illegal. Take Bacon, Burgers, Fried Foods take those options away. Fat People are going to eat, we have to prevent them from eating bad food! 

---

Which dovetails into the second half of my evil plan, mwahaha.  Actually, I've proposed on here before that welfare assistance should be meted out like dependency allowances for the military.  Regardless of how many dependents a service member has, they receive one set allowance amount.

I'd be totally okay with that! Welfare should be seen as a stepping stone, not a lifestyle.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Water is less than 3 cents per gallon, it should just be free.

 

Power is less than 29 cents per watt, it should just be free.

 

Bananas are only 69 cents a pound, they should just be free.

<div> 
Gas is only $3 a gallon, it should just be free.

 

Blue Moon is only $8 for a sixer, it should just be free.

 

The societal impacts of not having these things are far more important than simple birth control.

 

Of course, "Free" doesn't mean "Free", it just means someone else pays for it besides me.

</div>

 

Do you believe that abortion is murder?  How many abortions are performed in the United States per year?  

 

This is what I don't get.  Some of you guys (not you, necessarily, but some of you), think there are a million murdered babies per year.   And yet you think bananas are more important than birth control.   Some of you (myself included), think that the cost to society from babies born to unwed mothers, from crime to welfare, is huge.  And yet you equate providing free birth control to providing free beer.  

 

That does not compute. 

---

Do you believe that abortion is murder?  How many abortions are performed in the United States per year?  

 

This is what I don't get.  Some of you guys (not you, necessarily, but some of you), think there are a million murdered babies per year.   And yet you think bananas are more important than birth control.   Some of you (myself included), think that the cost to society from babies born to unwed mothers, from crime to welfare, is huge.  And yet you equate providing free birth control to providing free beer.  

 

That does not compute. 

 

Providing them birth control isn't the problem. It's giving government the authority to force everyone to pay for it that is.

 

Hell start a charity to pay for birth control, I'd pitch in 20 bucks from time to time, but you come at me with the force of government we've got problems. 

---

Everything with Government is about precedents. You set the precedent Government now has the authority to force ____ people to pay for ____ health care for ____ reasons it won't stop at health care.

---

So what hobby lobby is private company it's up to them what they'll cover and what they won't

 

Where did I say they are not free to run their business as they see fit? I'm merely commenting on their hypocrisy. 

 

I get to do that, right?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Providing them birth control isn't the problem. It's giving government the authority to force everyone to pay for it that is.

 

Hell start a charity to pay for birth control, I'd pitch in 20 bucks from time to time, but you come at me with the force of government we've got problems. 

 

Why is that?   Is there nothing government should do to prevent what a lot of people describe as murder?   Will the free market stop abortions?    Right now, you are ALREADY coming with the force of government to stop abortions through prosecution and police action.   Wouldn't it be more cost effective, as well as use a lot less government, to just prevent these pregnancies in the first place?  

---

Where did I say they are not free to run their business as they see fit? I'm merely commenting on their hypocrisy. 

 

I get to do that, right?

 

It's not hypocrisy it's a private company picking what procedures they want to pay for. EVERY Health Care provider does it......

---

Why is that?   Is there nothing government should do to prevent what a lot of people describe as murder?   Will the free market stop abortions?    Right now, you are ALREADY coming with the force of government to stop abortions through prosecution and police action.   Wouldn't it be more cost effective, as well as use a lot less government, to just prevent these pregnancies in the first place?  

 

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. 

---

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.  

---

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.

---

Do you believe that abortion is murder?  How many abortions are performed in the United States per year?  

 

This is what I don't get.  Some of you guys (not you, necessarily, but some of you), think there are a million murdered babies per year.   And yet you think bananas are more important than birth control.   Some of you (myself included), think that the cost to society from babies born to unwed mothers, from crime to welfare, is huge.  And yet you equate providing free birth control to providing free beer.  

 

That does not compute. 

 

Once you choose anything that the government "ought" to provide then you open up Pandora's Box, because there's always something more important or that affects more people that the government "ought" to pay for.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Once you choose anything that the government "ought" to provide then you open up Pandora's Box, because there's always something more important or that affects more people that the government "ought" to pay for.

Food and water are way more important than birth control...why not free food for everyone?

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

She is her own birth control

---

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. 

 

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?

 

 

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. 

---

It's not hypocrisy it's a private company picking what procedures they want to pay for. EVERY Health Care provider does it......

 

Again, you're fixated on the private company aspect. Yes, I think they can choose how to run their business, and yes, all companies make decisions like this. Hobby Lobby's particular choices reveal a hypocritical attitude towards men's reproductive health as opposed to women's.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Do not legislate morality.

---

Do not legislate morality.

All legislation IS morality.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato