Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-14-2012, 06:37 PM
 
994 posts, read 726,725 times
Reputation: 449

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
But it's a fact that Santorum said he thinks states should have the right to ban birth control. The year is 2012, not 1300. It's looney to try to make that an issue in this day and age.
They should have that right. Actually "should" doesn't even enter into it. They DO have that right.

The constitution says what it says. It doesn't say what you want it to say.

Of course the activist Supreme Court would strike the ban down. But that's because the RBG crowd have a difficult time understanding that "it doesn't say what you want it to say" part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-14-2012, 06:38 PM
 
Location: Silver Springs, FL
23,416 posts, read 37,095,033 times
Reputation: 15560
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl View Post
Why not just limit the number of children births insurance companies will pay for. That will be cost effective too.
Say, a one child policy?
Hmmmmm, what country does that sound like?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2012, 06:39 PM
 
Location: The Other California
4,254 posts, read 5,620,768 times
Reputation: 1552
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl View Post
Santorum never said that. he said that a state can make ANY statute that it wants. The interviewer was using birth control as an example. He was not endorsing the idea
No, Santorum DID say that, and God bless him for it. He's absolutely correct. Unfortunately he also said that he "would not support" state bans on contraception, though he believes they are constitutional.

Look, let's get this out in the open, shall we? Artificial contraception is a grave evil. It's use is plainly immoral and all Christians understood this for 1,900 years.

The effects of contraceptive use in this country have been utterly disastrous. The contraceptive mentality fuels promiscuity, abortion, and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Contraception has decimated families by robbing people of their natural support network (e.g., siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, in-laws). The lack of this support network has led to the rise of the nanny state and an exploding national debt. Contraception is destroying our economy by robbing it of producers, entrepreneurs, taxpayers and consumers. Population stagnation and decline always precedes economic collapse. Contraception leads to divorce because it undermines the strongest unifying force in marriage, the raising of children together.

Not only should employers not be forced to pay for it, but states should be free to restrict the proliferation and use of contraceptives and, preferably, to ban them altogether.

Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 02-14-2012 at 06:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2012, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Cape Coral
5,503 posts, read 7,354,989 times
Reputation: 2250
Quote:
Originally Posted by TempesT68 View Post
They would be covered anyhow as you can still give birth without insurance, which again would lead to huge insurance premium hikes. Plus those kids that would be being born, likely wouldn't be in there was birth control available.

The whole argument is just the right wingers picking a side, and their minions automatically agree with it that's what they are "suppose" to do, without actually thinking for themselves
Unless you are some kind of religious fanatic that thinks people like the Duggers with 20 kids are the biggest blessing on earth, this whole issue is a joke.
Maybe if the government didn't encourage these unwanted pregnancies by giving extra money for each child, there would be less births.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2012, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Cape Coral
5,503 posts, read 7,354,989 times
Reputation: 2250
Quote:
Originally Posted by TempesT68 View Post
Plus those kids that would be being born, likely wouldn't be if there was birth control available.
Who said birth control would not be available? Just not provided for free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2012, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Silver Springs, FL
23,416 posts, read 37,095,033 times
Reputation: 15560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
"In the wake of a controversy over a requirement that religious institutions provide contraceptive coverage, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) now supports a bill that gives any employer the right to exclude any type health service that they find objectionable."

Interesting statement to say the least.
Yes, it is interesting.
I am sure good ole Mitch wasnt thinking of oncology or cardiovascular services when he stated the above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2012, 06:43 PM
 
Location: mancos
7,788 posts, read 8,051,917 times
Reputation: 6706
Quote:
Originally Posted by TempesT68 View Post
No coverage to birth control means less people using it

Less people using birth control means more unwanted pregnancies.

More unwanted pregnancies means a boom in unwanted children and a skyrocketing birthrate, leading to more births and higher insurance premiums to accommodate.

More children means more doctors visits for these kids, which leads to higher premiums.

If the person cannot afford birth control otherwise, they likely are poor or have low income, that will have a huge burden on the taxpayer who now has a massive influx on people on welfare, a strain on the education system and more that leads to massive tax hikes.

A simple option to have birth control will save a monumental strain on the taxpayer and the country.
well you cant fix stupid,lazy or ignorant. I am sick of paying for it. your admitting your welfare people you defend have no brains and must have my meager wages for free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2012, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Central Ohio
10,838 posts, read 14,970,735 times
Reputation: 16604
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl View Post
The Obama campaign and all the media that is controlled by Obama are trying to make an issue that isn't there. No major republican is calling for a ban on birth control. Anything is better than running on his record.
It's not just birth control.

What about my toothpaste and deodorant? Seriously, why doesn't our national government require insurance companies to include free toothpaste, toothbrushes and deodorant? What about my daily aspirin?

Why doesn't government mandate my auto insurance pay the cost of my tune ups, oil changes and routine maintenance like tire rotations and changes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2012, 06:50 PM
 
1,120 posts, read 1,216,675 times
Reputation: 1356
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim View Post
I call it freedom. Employers shouldn't be forced by law to subsidize practices they believe to be immoral.

If employees want it, let 'em pay for it on their own.
You have hit on a fundamental difference between republicans and democrats. When it comes to freedom, sometimes there are conflicts. One mans freedom comes at the expense of another mans freedom. In such conflicts, republicans take the side of the strong while democrats take the side of the week. Why should women's access to birth control be controlled by her employer? Why not remove employment as a factor to access to birth control? Why allow employers to force their religious views on their employees?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2012, 06:51 PM
 
994 posts, read 726,725 times
Reputation: 449
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshe95girl View Post
I call it a lie, because all that shows is McConnell saying that the government does not have the authority to force a religious organization to offer contraception. Even when Bob Schieffer tried to get him to expand it he still specified religious organizations in his answer.

So, the fact that you call it a conservative "banning birth control" is your problem.

I cannot help that you are unwilling or unable to be intellectually honest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top