obamacare = free birth control?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women are the ones who can get pregnant. Biology and all that. Whether or not she can't do it alone is of no matter. Unless she is raped, she is the one who spread her legs so the responsibility ultimately is hers, like it or not. That's simply reality. Asking someone else to pay for that responsibility, when she had a choice to begin with, is ridiculous, because what you really are telling people to pay for, is a woman's right to have sex wherever and with whomever she wants.

So I'm supposed to mind my own business when person A has sex with person B, but I'm supposed to pay for it as well?

Grow up, the age of the dinosours is over. They have fossilized.
This is a mans issue. A man does not want to pay child suupport for the rest of his working years just because it is his duty to go and sow his wild seed. Sow and not reap. Yet you say the woman should reap?

Does a woman have a choice as to whether or not she has sex or with whom? Outside of rape, yes.

Does the resulting baby get a say in it? If you really believe a third person is involved in every pregnancy, you should not care whether the mother is being responsible or not. You should be preventing pregnancies so that there are fewer abortions. You know, defend the defenseless and all that...

Glad to know that your personal limit to ending abortion stops at a slight price increase on your insurance premiums. Real commitment. Clap. Clap. Clap.

[Anonymous]

It's not my job to prevent someone else's pregnancy. If it is, I want a say as to when and who she sleeps with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not my job to prevent someone else's pregnancy. If it is, I want a say as to when and who she sleeps with.

It shouldn't be my job to pay for your extra babies, either. If it is, I want a say as to how many you are allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not my job to prevent someone else's pregnancy. If it is, I want a say as to when and who she sleeps with.

Rush Limbaugh in da house!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Economics would dictate that no western government should have an interest is population control given the dwindling numbers. We have to stay at replacement rate (2) to keep the economy moving.

America is already growing at beyond the replacement rate. Other western governments are not part of this discussion.

Actually, America is officially below replacement, at 1.9:

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-us-population.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Economics would dictate that no western government should have an interest is population control given the dwindling numbers. We have to stay at replacement rate (2) to keep the economy moving.

America is already growing at beyond the replacement rate. Other western governments are not part of this discussion.

Actually, America is officially below replacement, at 1.9:

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-us-population.aspx

That factsheet doesn't count immigration. And unwanted children are not going to create an economic benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Economics would dictate that no western government should have an interest is population control given the dwindling numbers. We have to stay at replacement rate (2) to keep the economy moving.

America is already growing at beyond the replacement rate. Other western governments are not part of this discussion.

Actually, America is officially below replacement, at 1.9:

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-us-population.aspx

You forgot immigrants.