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.
I don't think this is a conflict of interest. This woman wants to discourage people from having promiscuous sex...because one of the consequences of that is CHILDREN and STD's...like it or not, sex can create children. Instead of teaching children how to have sex we should let their parents teach them about the value of a sexual relationship within a monogamous relationship. Nothing wrong with that.
I don't think this is a conflict of interest. This woman wants to discourage people from having promiscuous sex...because one of the consequences of that is CHILDREN and STD's...like it or not, sex can create children. Instead of teaching children how to have sex we should let their parents teach them about the value of a sexual relationship within a monogamous relationship. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm not sure how you gathered what her motivations are. It seems to me that she wants to stop providing funding for contraceptives. Contraception is part of adults behaving responsibly. How can anyone be opposed to that?
Or did you (or she) seriously think that people will now, thousands of years after the dawn of man, stop having intercourse for pleasure?
I'm not sure how you gathered what her motivations are. It seems to me that she wants to stop providing funding for contraceptives. Contraception is part of adults behaving responsibly. How can anyone be opposed to that?
Or did you (or she) seriously think that people will now, thousands of years after the dawn of man, stop having intercourse for pleasure?
I don't think people will stop having intercourse, I think they should have to accept the consequences of their actions.
Why should the government (tax dollars) go towards "responsible" adults engaging in sex acts? I'm opposed to that...so there's at least one person you found. Tax dollars shouldn't go towards condoms or pills for people who choose to engage in those behaviors...
I don't think this is a conflict of interest. This woman wants to discourage people from having promiscuous sex...because one of the consequences of that is CHILDREN and STD's...like it or not, sex can create children. Instead of teaching children how to have sex we should let their parents teach them about the value of a sexual relationship within a monogamous relationship. Nothing wrong with that.
It goes beyond that.
Ms. Orr does not want health insurance companies to offer birth control scripts and services, i.e. tubal ligations, to their subscribers.
Example:
Mr. & Mrs. X have been married for 12 years. They have three kids. Mr. X has a job with the federal govt. Let's say that his health insurance plan covers birth control pills, devices (i.e. diaphragm), sterilization (tubal ligation, vasectomies). Ms. Orr opposes those services being offered to Mr. and Mrs X because "fertility is not a disease". She opposes birth control period.
Frankly, I think Mr. and Mrs. X should be left alone.
You can tell teenagers what to do all you want...in the end it's a crapshoot. I know because I raised 4 of them.
I don't think people will stop having intercourse, I think they should have to accept the consequences of their actions.
Why should the government (tax dollars) go towards "responsible" adults engaging in sex acts? I'm opposed to that...so there's at least one person you found. Tax dollars shouldn't go towards condoms or pills for people who choose to engage in those behaviors...
I'd rather my tax dollars go to providing contraception than to supporting all the unwanted and unplanned children from cradle to grave. Somehow I think my choice costs the US less than yours.
I'd rather my tax dollars go to providing contraception than to supporting all the unwanted and unplanned children from cradle to grave. Somehow I think my choice costs the US less than yours.
You don't know what my other choices are...
How about ending all entitlement programs?! That would save a lot of money. The Federal government has no business creating these programs; what each state does depends on the voters and its Constitution.
How about ending all entitlement programs?! That would save a lot of money. The Federal government has no business creating these programs; what each state does depends on the voters and its Constitution.
"The Title X Family Planning program ["Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs" (Public Law 91-572)], was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The Title X program is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low- income families.
How about ending all entitlement programs?! That would save a lot of money. The Federal government has no business creating these programs; what each state does depends on the voters and its Constitution.
Hear! Hear!
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.
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.
