Abortions drop 61% when.............

[wake_up]

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/595/2...3316623898.jpg

[BlandFood]

Imagine that at what............. 8 or 9 bucks a month? I suspect Fluck could afford that. That's about 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes in today's prices.

[Baltimatt]

BlandFood--

Did you read the caption? Abortions dropped 61% when contraceptives were given away for free.

[TheResearcher]

BlandFood--

Did you read the caption? Abortions dropped 61% when contraceptives were given away for free.

Free? You mean the manufacturer doesn't charge anyone for making them? You mean that the places people go to get them are staffed by people working for nothing?
Wow!! What nice people.

[Baltimatt]

Researcher--

Why are you quoting me? Why don't you ask the OP, since he's the one who posted the link.

[Brohan]

BlandFood--

Did you read the caption? Abortions dropped 61% when contraceptives were given away for free.

They are free? The fall out of the sky or grow on trees?

Foreclosures and evictions would go down too if no one had to pay their mortgage or rent.

[Baltimatt]

Brohan--

Why are you quoting me? Why don't you ask the OP, since he's the one who posted the link.

[Wild Eyed Southern Boy]

Click the link if you want to see the real cost of birth control unavailability.

Remember, don't make a boo boo!

http://www.craigboyce.com/w/2012/11/...o-boo-condoms/

[Wild Eyed Southern Boy]

BlandFood--

Did you read the caption? Abortions dropped 61% when contraceptives were given away for free.

Yes, but doesn't a doctor have to determine the type of prescriptive BC for the individual?

To my knowledge, one size doesn't fill all, in this case.

[Baltimatt]

Again, the claim in the OP is that free birth control reduced abortions 61%. I don't know if that included doctor visits for prescription birth control. Please refer all questions to the OP. I'm just pointing out what the link said.

[jessup270]

We have this constant debate about pro life, pro choice.

If the government gave away birth control in all forms it would be a tremendous savings for taxpayer, by not having to pay for children of irresponsible parents.

Plus if a child is not conceived there is no pro life, pro choice issue to discuss.

Giving away contraceptives cost the taxpayers pennies compared to the cost of raising a child.

I really think some non profit organization should offer males between the ages of 18 and 40, a cash payment of say $4,000 if a person volunteers to have a no cost vasectomy.

Some men under 25 have 3 or 4 children that taxpayers foot the bill for.

A few dollars to encourage a vasectomy is cheap.

[SemiAuto]

We have this constant debate about pro life, pro choice.

If the government gave away birth control in all forms it would be a tremendous savings for taxpayer, by not having to pay for children of irresponsible parents.

Plus if a child is not conceived there is no pro life, pro choice issue to discuss.

Giving away contraceptives cost the taxpayers pennies compared to the cost of raising a child.

I really think some non profit organization should offer males between the ages of 18 and 40, a cash payment of say $4,000 if a person volunteers to have a no cost vasectomy.

Some men under 25 have 3 or 4 children that taxpayers foot the bill for.

A few dollars to encourage a vasectomy is cheap.

Then you pay the cost of government giving away birth control. TANSTAAFL

[soulflower]

We have this constant debate about pro life, pro choice.

If the government gave away birth control in all forms it would be a tremendous savings for taxpayer, by not having to pay for children of irresponsible parents.

Plus if a child is not conceived there is no pro life, pro choice issue to discuss.

Giving away contraceptives cost the taxpayers pennies compared to the cost of raising a child.

I really think some non profit organization should offer males between the ages of 18 and 40, a cash payment of say $4,000 if a person volunteers to have a no cost vasectomy.

Some men under 25 have 3 or 4 children that taxpayers foot the bill for.

A few dollars to encourage a vasectomy is cheap.

Reduced birth rate = Reduced economic growth(ie Japan)

Everything has a cost...

[Calamari]

We have this constant debate about pro life, pro choice.

If the government gave away birth control in all forms it would be a tremendous savings for taxpayer, by not having to pay for children of irresponsible parents.

Plus if a child is not conceived there is no pro life, pro choice issue to discuss.

Giving away contraceptives cost the taxpayers pennies compared to the cost of raising a child.

I really think some non profit organization should offer males between the ages of 18 and 40, a cash payment of say $4,000 if a person volunteers to have a no cost vasectomy.

Some men under 25 have 3 or 4 children that taxpayers foot the bill for.

A few dollars to encourage a vasectomy is cheap.

Yeah. That's the thing about this, it makes sense from an economic as well as a moral perspective for right wingers. If they don't want birth control given out that means the right must actually want higher taxes and more abortions. Quite a bind, so they ignore it.

It's the sort of thing that conservatives might have went for before the stark ideological division that exists today.

[BlandFood]

BlandFood--

Did you read the caption? Abortions dropped 61% when contraceptives were given away for free.

Of course I did but did Santa give them out?.... outside of him NOTHING is free that I know of other than maybe air.

[Baltimatt]

BlandFood--

Why are you quoting me? Why don't you ask the OP, since he's the one who posted the link.

[jessup270]

Yeah. That's the thing about this, it makes sense from an economic as well as a moral perspective for right wingers. If they don't want birth control given out that means the right must actually want higher taxes and more abortions. Quite a bind, so they ignore it.

It's the sort of thing that conservatives might have went for before the stark ideological division that exists today.

Your absolutely correct about the right.

They support pro life, which is morally right, but at the same time refuse to raise taxes to educate and support the children being born.

You can't have it both ways.

[BlandFood]

BlandFood--

Why are you quoting me? Why don't you ask the OP, since he's the one who posted the link.

Because you asked me a question? Have you visited Grand Wiz in the last few hours?

[SemiAuto]

Your absolutely correct about the right.

They support pro life, which is morally right, but at the same time refuse to raise taxes to educate and support the children being born.

You can't have it both ways.

Wrong. They can be pro life on moral grounds and not agree with the idea of the government taking over the responsibilities of child raising that rightfully belong with the parents.

[jessup270]

Wrong. They can be pro life on moral grounds and not agree with the idea of the government taking over the responsibilities of child raising that rightfully belong with the parents.

Of course the government should not have to take the responsibilities of parents who refuse to take care of their children.

But we live in world of reality, where thousands of people have babies and do not provide for them.

What to do?

Let the kids starve and go without shelter, refuse to educate them.

Thats just not going to happen in America. It my be the norm in third world countries, but not here

Unlimited free contraceptives solve many problem, BEFORE they become problems.