Where did we change? (Page 4)

Now let's end the myth right now that I think sex is a risky behavior. I didn't say that. Some behaviors involving sex are risky but sex in most situations an extremely healthy and very fun activity.

I think we would both agree that frequent drunk unprotected sex with a stranger is higher risk than sex with a long term mutually monogamous partner. As a conservative, I have no problem with anybody participating in either type of activity (heck the former defined the extent of my college relationships) however how is it the latter's responsibility to pay for the former's behavior?   

Now also we are talking about the federal government. A Conservative is perfectly content for States and localities implementing their own public health programs and it is well within the rights of the states to do so.

Actually when it comes to government involvement on a state level, a Conservative would have absolutely no problem if a state like Vermont wanted to implement socialism or communism as long as people remained free to move.  

I agree.  I think the cost/benefit is weighted heavily towards making BC free or really, really cheap.  Let me ask those opposed, is this kind of a slippery slope opposition?  In other words, where does the government stop - subsidizing a healthy diet, exercise, other sorts of preventative medication?  Is that it?

OK... glad you have isolated the problem. Feel free to give as much BC as you can afford away to strangers. Better yet, come up with a organization to get donations to give free birth control to all those tyhat want it. work to make this world a better place. Personal responsibility.

But what politics has become is how can it pay for my way in this world. You can talk about how much BC cost me... what maybe 10 cents a year.... but I have a 100,000 government programs I pay 10 cents a year for and this country is going broke. The U.S. is a very wealthy nation, but we can never afford to pay for peoples living.

Feel free to donate to any program you feel passionate about... just stop mandating for me to do the same..... and while we are at it... who says I am responsible for paying for someone else's kids? I made my decision... I didn't have any. Who says I should pay for a person to stay on welfare all their lives and then pay for every kid they feel like having... it's wrong.

Personal responsibility.

people in the latter type of relationships have unplanned pregnancies and end up on welfare/wic/etc alllllll the time.  monogamous does NOT mean responsible.  i find it interesting that you label "promiscuous" vs. "monogamous" as having different needs for birth control.

A step for them would be to follow the constitution and embrace the 2A. I think if they did a lot more middle ground people would change for one candidate.

Like I said earlier I still don't know how a group can say they are for people’s freedoms when a huge part of their views is to take away a constitutionally given one.

That's areal problem, niether party is truely for individual freedom.... just their particular brand of it.

As I said a Conservative health programs fall under the directive of the state and local government. if Vermont want universal health care, free abortions, free BC, I say more power to Vermont. I am sure there are a lot of people that would enjoy a life of cradle to grave government care. I have no problem with that.

Now also as a Conservative, I'll error on the side of personal responsibility. You want to stick you veins with needles and get hep c...enjoy, but don't ask me to write a check when you get sick. It is always a lot easier to not give something away than to take it away in the future.

The promiscuous vs monogamous was referring to disease not contraception. 

I don't think I should nor do I want to pay for the BC of the monogamous relationship either. I am perfectly content taking care of my own family planning on my own dime. I also think that people might think twice about having the third kid when they can't afford the first two. 

Really? Holier than thou?

Infrastructure you most certainly use whether you have a car or not. If you do have a car then you pay more taxes on gas and registration to drive. You can't seriously be comparing handing out BC so people can get laid to police and fire... something every single citizen agrees is important to have.

I have no problem paying my "fair share"... in fact, if I had to pay double, I would. Yet I see no reason what so ever to pay for someone else's poor decisions and choices of personal life style. I do not have that much money. I happen to agree in a country as rich as our we should have a social security net so when you get old you do not die in the street. Same for medical care. If you are actually disabled, you should have some dignity in your life.... I do not at all agree there is any reasonable explaination to pay for multi generational welfare families. I do not agree that I should pay for your personal reproductive choices... I pay for mine already.

If we truely are "all in it together".... then what exactly is your problem with others pulling their own GD weight? What problem do you have that society SHOULD actually EXPECT people to take responsibility for themselves??? Instead of what we are headed to now... which is don't worry about it... do what ever you want, the government will pay for it.

I have no problem paying taxes for the things you just mentioned even if I may not use them, it is a function of government to maintain roads and provide for public safety and upkeep parks. Conservatives aren't anarchist, government does serve a purpose and needs funds to function.

Here is my viewpoint on paying for social behavior.

If I pay for what happens behind your bedroom door, I should have a say of what happens behind your bedroom door. 

If I am required to pay for your diabetes, I should have a say in limiting the sugar you put in your body. 

That is fair, right? Bloomberg has a point even if I don't agree with the overall policy. If the taxpayer is going to pay for your behavioral choices, the taxpayer should have a say. However, I would rather live under a government that stayed out of my bedroom and refrigerator.

No not subsidizing sex but shifting the cost and related responsibilities associated with sex from the person participating to the the taxpayer. BC is one part of the cost shift but I think we both understand BC and sex as the example is our discussion as a model for the concept that being discussed in this thread. We could easily swap BC for TANF or sex for recreational drug use.

There are a lot of things that will reduce unwanted pregnancies including birth control. That's great. But where is mandated that it is the federal government and the taxpayer's responsibility to  prevent every unwanted pregnancy?

If person A is entitled to contraception and person B is entitled to provide that contraception than what did person B do to fall into debt to person A? If person A has no obligation to person B isn't person B's right's infringed?  

Why do I have to pay down the road?

I do not see it as subsidizing sex, and I don't care who has it with who, or how often... I see it as YOU mandating the government to take responsibility of ones behavior. If you want it paid for, then pay for it.

I'm just going to keep getting high all I want, and I'm just going to keep breaking the law to get them... so you might as well make them legal and supply me with them so I do not have to steal for them. It will cost you less to get me high all I want than it will be to put me through the legal system/incarcerate me for the rest of my life. Win/win for both of us.... since "we are all in this together". And when I have kids even thought I had BC... you can pay for them too. Thanks Buddy. This is working out great.

Touche... (how do you make the accent mark again?)

¿Qué?

From a philosophical point of view what would be the difference?

With the cost of BC if someone isn't willing or able to come up with a buck for a condom are they going to go to the trouble to go to some government facility for free rubbers/BC?

One of my concerns with Federal Free BC is it breeds a mentality that they are entitled to free krap from the Federal Government. Another concern is the inefficiency, fraud and abuse with most programs the Feds have.

@Tony, are you saying we need another program or more Federal Funds for BC?,,,,, We currently fund Planned Parenthood to the tune of a half a billion dollars a year I think. If you think the Feds should do more how do you propose that take place?

This disproves that.

Sigh... one, or a hundred, or a thousand, for that matter, examples mean nothing in the large context of things, when we're talking about millions of Americans. That example does not disprove that people in general might think twice. All it does is prove that the woman in the video doesn't think twice.