Should Obamacare Dictate Birth Control?

[Lorini]

Nezz is a troll. Ignore him.

[Murbella]

Isn't he just saying the hard line religious right (ie santorum) position?

Although I suppose in a way Santorum is just trolling the nation too.

[madkevin]

Building a social and economic framework that supports early and lasting marriage with many children for everyone.

Oh, yes. Forcing teenagers into loveless marriages is the best possible outcome for a child's development and happiness.

[Nezz]

Nezz is a troll. Ignore him.
Thought experiment: You wake up, and discover that your favorite forum has been taken over by extreme right-wingers. The most obvious, basic foundations of your world view will be ridiculed by barely literate clowns, the more advanced conclusions barely cared for by the more well-meaning members. Everything you say from then on will necessarily fulfill a certain definition of trolling, because you know what the reactions will be, and the right-wingers know that you know.

What do you do?

[Pogo]

Ignore you, ridicule Brett and Andy Bates.

[Lorini]

^^^^^ Although I don't do the ridiculing part.

[Oghier]

Given that Nezz is simply restating Santorum's position on the matter, I think the debate necessarily goes beyond 'troll!' There are evidently a fair number of people who sincerely believe this crazy retro-garbage, and not just because it causes a reaction.

It's because they're at war with the devil.

[John Many Jars]

Many children for everyone! Wheeeee! What could possibly be better?

[Dawn Falcon]

Oh, maybe a relationship between the state and each individual (and not family or larger unit), ensuring that receive the support they need to be a productive member of society, and that they can form social relationships based on will and not need?

That's a keystone of the Nordic Model, incidentally. The Nordic peoples are generally highly individualist: The state enables them to be so.

[Dan_Theman]

As an aside to all the above debate over my response, it was only made to counter the notion that churches didn't have a monetary interest in marriage. They do. The degree is certainly debatable, but it's still there. As for various denominations and faiths, the fees are collected in highly variable ways. Some have membership fees. Some tithe. Some have "expected donations." Some have all the above. In short, the various churches/temples/mosques will get their money in one way or another, and it's in their financial interest to keep membership up. Performing weddings is an important tool to accomplish that task.

My earlier comments were also not meant to address any specific church or faith. As such, please be a little flexible in your interpretations. After all, we've spent years with "?" followed by "Profit!" and that hasn't seemed to bother too many of you. It's also not a bad thing that churches make money (perhaps that statement rubs some of the militant atheists here the wrong way, but whatever) as long as they provide whatever people are willingly paying for, and by no means was my comment intended as any kind of condemnation.

[Brettmcd]

Ignore you, ridicule Brett and Andy Bates.


Its quite interesting that I almost never post here anymore and Pogo still cant stop talking about me. Its a bit creepy if you really think about it actually. Pogo I really am not all that interesting that you need to keep doing this on multiple forums.

[Teiman]

Building a social and economic framework that supports early and lasting marriage with many children for everyone.

But that's hard, and risks empowering many people. Much easier to drown them in their sensual desires.

Many children for everyone will create a overpopulation problem, more stress on the natural world resources that will be unable to cope.

Plus womens giving birth to a lot of childrens is a lot of stress on these people bodies.

I don't know what problem this supposedly solve, but create new huge ones.

[John Reynolds]

Everyone just needs to be more like the Duggars.

[Tortilla]

Many children for everyone will create a overpopulation problem, more stress on the natural world resources that will be unable to cope.


Nonsense, the US is below replacement rate already if you factor out immigrants. An uptick in birth rate and a greater family focus would not have negatives that outweighed the positives.



Plus womens giving birth to a lot of childrens is a lot of stress on these people bodies.


And yet so many women want to do it anyway . . . ? I'm not sure what your point is here. There's plenty of ways to counter Nezz's rather silly point but trying to criticize nuclear families isn't the best approach.

[Hugin]

Nonsense, the US is below replacement rate already if you factor out immigrants. An uptick in birth rate and a greater family focus would not have negatives that outweighed the positives.

How can you factor out immigrants? They're here, they're having kids, they're consuming resources. You can't arbitrarily remove them from the equation.

Not counting my excess body fat, I'm skinny!

Meanwhile, it could be argued the US population is already putting an untenable strain on various worldwide resources at its current population and consumption levels. So whether the population goes up, or goes down at a slower rate, an uptick in birth rate could easily have negative consequences that outweigh the positives.

[Timex]

Well, it could be read that if you factor out actual immigration (folks born elsewhere who then come here), you have a negative population growth. I don't think that's true though, is it?

[Jason McCullough]

It's slightly below (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States) replacement rate; 2.01 vs. 2.1. Immigration is high compared to the rest of the first world, but at 0.3% a year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States) it doesn't hold a candle to the 1900s at 1% a year.

[Nezz]

A self-willed nation like the United States must necessarily approach the question from a very unique angle, an angle I admit I will never fully comprehend nor dare to judge.

But for most nations of the world, which are ethnic, replacement is a very simple biological question. Either the Japanese (for example) have more children, or they will disappear forever as a people, as nobody can ever become one of them by migrating to their territory.

[cliffski]

Oh, maybe a relationship between the state and each individual (and not family or larger unit), ensuring that receive the support they need to be a productive member of society, and that they can form social relationships based on will and not need?


The state should be everyone's parent?

[Teiman]

Nonsense, the US is below replacement rate already if you factor out immigrants. An uptick in birth rate and a greater family focus would not have negatives that outweighed the positives.


Part of this is true. Europe is getting older, and this is expensive (more people taking from taxing than adding from taxes).

But the dude I was replying make it like a rule for everyone. Then you have a population explosion. USA is already a huge pression over resources.



And yet so many women want to do it anyway . . . ? I'm not sure what your point is here. There's plenty of ways to counter Nezz's rather silly point but trying to criticize nuclear families isn't the best approach.

I was tryiing to build a bridge, from my opinions, to his opinions. And make that bridge two ways, so he can understand my point, and I can understand his motives better.

[Dawn Falcon]

The state should be everyone's parent?

You'd rather have corporations control everyone's life. And corporations are psychopathic by design. *claps*

(Also, hint, where are people happy and very few indeed are starving? Because that ISN'T the UK or US...)

[cliffski]

I'd rather control my own life, but as an extremist leftie, you won't allow me to do so, I notice.

edit: so my company ownership by definition makes me a pyschopath? If you have an employer, do you consider your employer's psychopaths too? what a weird world view.

[cornfuzed]

Okay, now I'm pissed. About the last dozen or so posts are so far off topic, you people gotta be high.

Why wasn't I invited?

[Anders Hallin]

The state should be everyone's parent?
No, but I think that we have, to an extent, a positive right to equality of opportunity which promotes both individuality and liberty. To have parents being the sole providers of the material necessities necessary for that in practice is both woefully inadequate and capricious.

[Dawn Falcon]

I'd rather control my own life

Ah yes, the libertarian crap about every man an Island. Look where that's taken America - Corporatism. That's what you, in practice, stand for. People trapped in shitty jobs because employers have the whip hand...and wages spiralling downwards in earning power in the economy.

And no. It's your own behaviour...

[Flowers]

Guys, if I can come into this thread eighteen pages in, and Dawn Falcon sounds like he's making sense, the rest of you are fucking something up. Did somebody actually argue that a society of child molesting Italian wizards was competent to dictate healthcare plan provisions to the beautiful and independent women of the United States of America?

I'm sorry, I should not have called the Catholic Church a, "society of child molesting Italian wizards." What I should have said was, "a society of child molesting Italian sorcerors based on the magic of David Copperfield and run by a former Nazi." By the way, it is not lost on me how the 21st Century one-upped the shit out of Dan Brown.

If you stand in the way of a grown woman's access to contraceptives, you're a cockblocker. All cockblockers eat shit.

[WarrenM]

Thought experiment: You wake up, and discover that your favorite forum has been taken over by extreme right-wingers. The most obvious, basic foundations of your world view will be ridiculed by barely literate clowns, the more advanced conclusions barely cared for by the more well-meaning members. Everything you say from then on will necessarily fulfill a certain definition of trolling, because you know what the reactions will be, and the right-wingers know that you know.

What do you do?
You move on to another forum where you might find a group of people more agreeable to your views where you can circle jerk the day away, conflict free? Or do you just enjoy trolling?

[Scuzz]

If you stand in the way of a grown woman's access to contraceptives, you're a cockblocker. All cockblockers eat shit.


So a cockblocker is a shit eating contraceptive. That could prove very handy.

[ineffablebob]

Interesting article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/19/free-birth-control-could-it-transform-society.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29) today at the Daily Beast about how making birth control universally available could affect society.

It’s not news that if we’re born into a deprived or low-nurturing home, we have a greater chance of growing up anxious and low-nurturing ourselves—and acting out the social consequences of that early experience. What is news is that we’re learning so much about why this happens—and to a large degree it’s due to changes in the chemistry of the social brain. We’re not saying that single-parent or poor families dealing with unintended pregnancies are doomed to produce socially dysfunctional children. A poor single mother, for instance, can benefit from social support for distressed families. Such interventions can help interrupt the cycle.

And so can free birth control.

[RepoMan]

This is the sort of thing that makes the Pope cry.

AND A GOOD THING TOO.