あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]uncleputts -3ポイント-2ポイント  (21子コメント)

It isn't the babies you're concerned about, it's women being equals. If any of you were concerned about the children, there would be a lot more support for single mother's ability to raise their children. If you really want to reduce or eliminate abortions then support access to birth control.

edit: Freedom.

[–]NerdyConservative[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (20子コメント)

Here's a novel idea. How about keeping your legs closed and pants up? How about girls and dudes exercise self control and responsibility? Why should anyone else have to make birth control more readily available?

Condoms are cheap. Abstinence is free. Don't make adult choices if you can't handle adult responsibilites

[–]JagerBaBomb 4ポイント5ポイント  (12子コメント)

It's kind of a greater good thing. There's very little rational reason to be against greater/cheaper access to female birth control, as it's very low-cost to subsidize and shows large benefits to areas that make it more readily available. Pregnancies go down, abortions go down, children out of wedlock goes down... I mean, really, why would you be against that?

[–]NerdyConservative[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (11子コメント)

It's not my responsibility to pay for someone else's birth control. Why is just not having sex out of marriage such a bad thing? Why is being responsible and not doing it in the first place wrong? Why are you opposed to abstinence? Genuine question.

Keeping your pants up until marriage also prevents kids born out of wedlock. Why should other people help pay for someone else's sex life?

[–]JagerBaBomb 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

Everything you just said is fantasy. You're in denial of reality, how humans behave, and the mating habits of our species. Abstinence doesn't work precisely because we're imperfect beings, ones which generally crave sexual activity on a regular basis.

What you wrote is akin to saying, "If only people would just do the right thing, all the time, then nothing would ever be wrong!" It's silly, infantile reasoning.

As for why the government should use tax-payer money on this? Because that's what governments (are supposed to) do: subsidize things which apply broadly and have a tangible, positive effect for society. There's really no downside when you consider just how little of 'your' tax money goes toward this, and how much of a net positive it provides. Like I said: lower levels of unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions, less welfare money going toward unfit parents, etc..

[–]pipechapLibertarian Conservative -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Abstinence doesn't work precisely because we're imperfect beings, ones which generally crave sexual activity on a regular basis.

Bullshit. There are tons of examples of people who are in their late 40s who are still virgins. If what you're saying is absolutely undeniably proven, nobody would be able to resist their sexual urges at all, and anyone and everyone would pretty much involuntarily lose their virginity when they hit puberty.

By that logic, you should also be excusing murderers on the basis that animal instinct includes territorial behavior, and other males or other people of the same gender intruding on your perceived territory is a threat, which invokes a reaction of "self defense".

We are not animals, we have the ability to control all of our instincts. The difference is some people choose not to.

[–]jawa709 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Keeping your pants up until marriage also prevents kids born out of wedlock. Why should other people help pay for someone else's sex life?

And what about those of us who don't marry?

[–]died_inthe_wool 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fear of children born out of wedlock--really fear of bastardy--is a really old idea that predates the advent of hormonal birth control.

[–]Papatrey -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

It's a fiscal matter of paying either for birth control or paying for all other things a child will use (schooling for example). The fiscal choice is birth control based on its relative cost effective means. It doesn't matter if you want people to just not have sex as they're gonna do it anyway. I haven't seen any scientific research that shows good value in abstinence only education. It's a matter of choosing between the better of two bad options.

[–]pursehook 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm fine with your argument about cost effectiveness.

But, birth control is already very cheap or freely available. Who is really not using it because they can't afford it? There seems to be money for drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.

[–]pipechapLibertarian Conservative -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's a fiscal matter of paying either for birth control or paying for all other things a child will use

It's also a personal matter before it's a social matter.

It is not the responsibility of society to take care of your birth control or child's needs simply because you want to have sex.

[–]Papatrey -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

When you say child's needs does that include paying for schooling? Birth control is cheaper than schooling and there are situations where society will be paying for one or the other. And I don't consider it society's responsibility I see it as an opportunity to be fiscally sound.

[–]pipechapLibertarian Conservative 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you knowingly can't afford either, why have sex?

You know what else would be fiscally sound? Buying all the drug addicts in the country drugs. By doing so we'd protect society from being mugged and having their houses robbed by addicts so they can pawn their stolen goods and get a fix.

[–]uncleputts 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

One day you'll learn that sex is really fun even you're not trying to make babies.

[–]NerdyConservative[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Oh I love sex. I have lots of it and enjoy it frequently. In the confines of marriage where it belongs.

[–]Akillees89 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wait are you saying that the joy of sex is only for married people? What do you want the rest of the people to do?

[–]uncleputts 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do not. Pics or it didn't happen.

[–]joeb5578 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

None of that matters though, when we have to spend the next 18 years dealing with their bad choice, whether it's paying for their food stamps, paying for yet another seat at an already maxed out school, or paying for the inevitable life of revolving door jail time since they, statistically, are not likely to be very productive to society.

This is why there has always been a gap between social conservatism and libertarianism/fiscal conservatism. I certainly look down on women who are irresponsible and have to murder their baby because of their own shitty choices, but I will defend to the death their right to do it.

[–]NerdyConservative[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

So you you'll fight for a person's right to murder their kid but don't care doing so violates their right to life? That doesn't even make sense dude.

Also. If you're libertarian don't you believe it's wrong to hurt others and deprive them of their rights? So how do you reconcile that?