[Psudo]

Brenda wrote:

I LOVE how women's rights are being thrown back in time 60+ years.

Uh... how so? Employers didn't pay for employees' birth control 60 or 50 or 40 years ago.

[Brenda]

Republicans don't want women to use birth control at all, they want them to not have sex or have the kids that come from that.

[2Cdo]

Brenda wrote:

Republicans don't want women to use birth control at all, they want them to not have sex or have the kids that come from that.

Democrats want all women to have abortions whenever they are pregnant.

Generalizations are fun!

[andyt]

Psudo wrote:

Brenda wrote:

I LOVE how women's rights are being thrown back in time 60+ years.

Uh... how so? Employers didn't pay for employees' birth control 60 or 50 or 40 years ago.

I love how women's rights are being thrown back in time 40 years.

It's not just women's rights. This affects all of society. Think of all the young guys who wouldn't get any because their dates don't want to get pregnant. Great invention, the pill. Have some compassion for young horny guys, for God's sake.

[Brenda]

Hey, when someone is yelling "Use an aspirin to keep your legs shut", and it is 5 men on a panel deciding about contraception for women...

BTW, democrats want women to have the CHOICE to have abortions whenever they are pregnant.

[andyt]

His point was that not all Republicons are nutbars about contraception. But obviously enough are when somebody like "a rape child is a gift from God" Santorum is considered a viable contender for president.

[2Cdo]

andyt wrote:

His point was that not all Republicons are nutbars about contraception.

You got yet I knew Brenda wouldn't.

[Brenda]

andyt wrote:

But obviously enough are when somebody like "a rape child is a gift from God" Santorum is considered a viable contender for president.

Yeah, no kidding.

[Brenda]

2Cdo wrote:

andyt wrote:

His point was that not all Republicons are nutbars about contraception.

You got yet I knew Brenda wouldn't.

You have NO clue about what I get and what I don't.

[2Cdo]

Brenda wrote:

2Cdo wrote:

andyt wrote:

His point was that not all Republicons are nutbars about contraception.

You got yet I knew Brenda wouldn't.

You have NO clue about what I get and what I don't.

[Psudo]

Brenda wrote:

BTW, democrats want women to have the CHOICE to have abortions whenever they are pregnant.

BTW, Republicans want women to pay for their own birth control -- not to be denied it.

andyt wrote:

when somebody like "a rape child is a gift from God" Santorum is considered a viable contender for president.

Santorum is not a viable contender for President in part because his opposition to abortion in cases of rape is shared by less than 20% of the Republican Party (and certainly not me). Santorum got roughly 8% support from Republicans in the straw polls, and roughly a quarter of the popular vote in the few Republican Primaries we've had so far. He is not popular among Republicans, and is not a real contender for the Republican nomination let alone the actual presidency. The media is playing make-believe in hopes of creating some contention in the nomination process for ratings' sake. It's not real. Obama will beat Romney in the general election.

[Trenacker]

Most Democrats view abortion as part of the whole package of contraception, albeit an extreme part. Many would opt to keep a baby even if they were pregnant. I don't think that the population that perceives of abortion as an "easy" or direct solution for unplanned pregnancy is very large at all.

I think the really contentious issue is whether or not these women can afford to use birth control as frequently without insurance coverage. It has come to be seen as a right rather than a convenience or a privilege. This is unsurprising, given that birth control reduces the likelihood of certain consequences of having sex, which come along with a great deal of social baggage. Women feel that conservative opposition to birth control tampers with their right to relationships. I assume that most conservatives vaguely object to the idea of a society in which sexual relations are less consequential than they might otherwise be, but are more worried about whether or not they are somehow bankrolling these behaviors. A marked minority are interested in simply getting rid of birth control altogether, and make no bones about the fact that they feel they have the Human Instruction Manual in hand when they do it. That's unkind, perhaps, but, I think, accurate.

[Psudo]

Freedom of choice inherently includes personally accepting the consequences of your own choices. That cannot be achieved to perfection, but it can be sought as a virtue. If someone else is forced to pay for your choices, that force inherently conflicts with their freedom of choice. Is freedom gained by sacrificing freedom? Should we take what we can at others' expense?

Two classes of regrets weigh on my conscience: my own failures, and the unnecessary obligations I place on others. Do others' consciences work differently?

[Trenacker]

Is it a virtue for somebody to carry, birth, and raise an unwanted child?

The book Freakonomics suggests that legalized abortion and the widespread availability of birth control account for a marked decline in crime throughout the U.S. after the 1980s. Should the implications of that finding (assuming for the moment that it is wholly legitimate) -- that unplanned pregnancies lead to serious social disruption -- suggest that there might be value to shared investment in birth control?

With due respect, because I don't think you're trying to make the point, I think I could fairly look at your discussion at consequences and ask, "Should a child ever be a 'consequence' that is designed to teach the parent a lesson in personal responsibility?"

[Psudo]

Both goals can be achieved if people pay for their own birth control. It's not an either/or situation.