Why should anyone be forced to pay for the abc of others?

[Iowa7681]

Actually I was alluding to nothing. Your right there are tons of options, they are just all dictated by the government. Its like trying to say a slave has options because you give him a choice to work in the wheat field, the corn field, in the shop, or chopping down trees. He has options but hes a slave lol!

Its also restrictive from the point of view that its a monopoly. Monopolies are always restrictive which is why the government works to break them up and prevent them from occurring. Monopolies are always the worst solution and only make sense in very rare occasions when creating a free market is impossible. A free market for healthcare is very possible, if the government would get its hands out of it and allow it to actually be a free market. We haven’t had a free market system since Medicare and Medicaid were started, which have ballooned prices.

I’ll give you an analogy using the most fundamental natural monopoly the government has which is National Security and our military. How often do you agree with the government’s National Security policy? How much control do you have over the governments National Security policy? That’s what you get to look forward to. National Security is something that has to be handled by the federal government and we just have to deal with it the best we can. Healthcare most certainly is not. I have to think this is an analogy liberals could relate to.

Yikes, I give up! You dont like government! Roger.

Of course a large family is expensive for the family, but its only expensive for the government because it made it so! That is my point.

Look, if you want to keep expanding the scope of what started as a pretty straight forward question, feel free. I get you feel that govt made ALL healthcare more expensive. Fine, more power to you. But, that is another point entirely. I didnt say its more expensive for the family. We are talking about the cost to provide the care (insurance). If you have 10 kids, and I have 2, the *majority *of the extra cost is borne by the insurance, ie, society.

(I only bring up the large family as a counter point to not wanting to pay for others birth control. Meaning, would the same person who doesnt want to pay for birth control be OK with not wanting to pay for large families? It is just a thought, not that I actually support it.)

The original question raised was “why should I pay for birth control for others”, that means through your premium/taxes. My point was that may very well be cheaper for everyone if you provide the birth control.

Ill fully grant you your point that government makes everything more expensive. With that assumption out of the way, you can still make valid points regarding the topic at hand.

Its disingenuous for you to use that as a basis for your argument considering you support the policies that made that problem in the first place… Big government works that way though in that it feeds on itself.

First, thats not my arguement. Re-read what I said.
Second, what policies am I supporting? I said it may be cheaper to pay for birth control regardless of who controls healthcare. You get yourself so spun up you are missing the entire point. This is a FINANCIAL discussion. I don’t support govt healthcare, and I never said anything even related.

 

[Rence]

I have asked this question a few times and haven’t received an answer, so I thought I’d ask it separately.

Artifical birth control and elective sterilizations are not medically treating anything. Pregnancy resulting from sexual activity shows the body is functioning well, not badly. Thus abc and elective sterilizations are not fixing anything, because nothing is wrong.

And the point of abc and elective sterilization is to allow people to have sex without children. In effect then, we are paying so people can have sex without having children.

?!?!?!?!?!?!

Why on earth should we be expected to pay for other people’s abc and elective sterilizations so they can have sex?!?!?!? Even a person who sees no moral problem with either should have a problem with that. Are we next going to start giving out gift certificates to romantic restaurants and flowers? If some prefers playing video games to having sex, should we pay for that?

I am not advocating making abc and elective sterlization illegal. For the purposes of this discussion, I am fine saying that what people do in private between consenting adults is not any of my business. I just don’t see why other people should have to pay to make it possible without children. The participants should pay for it themselves.

Well, I think your questions can be answered from a secular perspective by these questions: why should we be expected to pay for other people’s pregnancies, and resulting children up to the age of 18, especially for single people. When a woman gets pregnant, and can’t afford to finance the pregnancy or raise the child herself, she applies for medicaid and her medical bills are paid for. Then after the child is born, she is eligible for WIC, food stamps and stipends. When the child is old enough to go to school, the WIC and foodstamps are cut back a bit, but then the child gets free lunches at school. The child gets free health insurance for 18 years. The State pays quite a bit and so some would say, why do my taxes have to support other people’s kids when they can just go on birth control, and be taught to use them properly. Like it or not, when used properly, ABCs are quite effective at controlling births…just look at the average family size. Note that the bigger families are the exception, rather than the common.

The horse has been out of the barn for quite some time, way too long for it to be brought back in just because Catholics and other relgious groups preach against premarital sex. People are very much used to, and very much like, having sex without consequences. And there really is no ethical or moral way to stop them. So they will have sex, and they will want it without consequences. If people who can’t afford to pay their own medical expenses, and raise their children, are afforded birth control by the government, then married people who do not share the Catholic Church’s rules against birth control, will want a piece of the action. Afterall, they are married. And yes, quite a many people think that it’s perfectly acceptable to have sex anytime with their spouse and are not interested in NFP, which has a poor reputation all around (from being difficult to learn, difficult to follow, burdensome to marriages and just plain not effective for many).

The government feels it is in their best interest to cut costs by providing birth control. It’s also in the best interest of the insurance companies as well. The cost of supporting a child’s medical expenses (and more) is quite a bit more costly than providing birth control pills. At the rate WIC, food stamps, stipends and medical expenses are sucked dry by various applicants, I’m not surprised we don’t all get little pink packages direct from HHS straight to our doors.

 

[St_Francis]

…While this is true, by the same logic, I should not be forced to pay for the family with 10 children, correct? “The participants should pay for it themselves.” Still stand behind that statement?

As a vague and not-well-thought-out secularist (ie, before children), I would have seen the force of your argument. So I am not sure that there is a secular arfument against what you are saying.

Now that i am Catholic, it chills me, because it shows the utter wickedness of government intrusion into charitable activity, family matters, and even economic issues–in short, the destruction of subsidiarity.

If we pay even for education and nothing else, we will pay less if there are fewer children to educate. If we give money to poor people, we will have to give less if there are fewer children. If we decide that young people are a glut on the labor market, we will force them into school and unions will require a high school diploma, and it will be impractical to marry young; if we ship all our manufacturing jobs overseas, people will not be able to afford to start families without even higher education, and even that has to come to an end sometime, not to mention that some people are simply not suited to that type of work. And if governments make it very difficult to start one’s own business, or even to move up out of poverty, then things become even worse.

The more I learn, the worse things look.

 

[iloveangels]

Why birth control and abortion? Why are they free? Birth control and abortion target only women. This is only half the population. Why were those things chosen to be free?

Why not anti-biotics? Anti-biotics are life-saving drugs and many poor people have a lot of trouble scrounging up the money to pay for them when needed. Anti-biotics are sometimes necessary to save a life! Not only that, anti-biotics are potentially useful to everyone in the population. Why did they not choose to make anti-biotics free instead???

Why are they targeting women, half the population? Why not free anti-biotics instead?

 

[Nate13]

Has anyone asked whether this policy would cover NFP lessons/equipment? That would be another hypocritical point of the policy in and of itself if so.

 

[iloveangels]

Has anyone asked whether this policy would cover NFP lessons/equipment? That would be another hypocritical point of the policy in and of itself if so.

Excellent point.

 

[St_Francis]

• …While this is true, by the same logic, I should not be forced to pay for the family with 10 children, correct? *“The participants should pay for it themselves.” *Still stand behind that statement? *

Back in the days when I was a vague and not-well-thought-out secularist (ie, before children), I would have seen the force of your argument. So I am not sure that there is a secular argument against what you are saying.

Now that i am Catholic, it chills me, because it shows the utter wickedness of government intrusion into charitable activity, family matters, and even economic issues–in short, the destruction of subsidiarity.

If the government pays even for education and nothing else, it will pay less if there are fewer children to educate. If the governemnt gives money to poor people, it will have to give less if there are fewer children. If the government decides that young people are a glut on the labor market, it will force them into school and unions will require a high school diploma, and it will be impractical to marry young; if the government benefits corporations who all our manufacturing jobs overseas, people will not be able to afford to start families without higher education, and even that has to come to an end sometime, not to mention that some people are simply not suited to that type of work. And if governments make it very difficult to start one’s own business, or even to move up out of poverty, then things become even worse.

The more I learn, the worse things look.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Europe is dying because of contraception and abortion. The U.S. is also dying, but we have been given a reprieve from the consequences of our behavior by an influx of illegal immigrants who have babies. Moslems will take over the world without waging war, but simply by reproducing themselves, which we refuse to do.

 

[Iowa7681]

Back in the days when I was a vague and not-well-thought-out secularist (ie, before children), I would have seen the force of your argument. So I am not sure that there is a secular argument against what you are saying.

Well, wait a second. You asked why we should pay for birth control. You seemed to make it mostly a matter of finance (asking why we should pay, morality aside). Meaning, the cost to provide a level of medical service. My point is simply that providing this service (birth control) may mathematically be cheaper, or at a minimum a wash, to not providing birth control. If this is potentially true, for the sake of the question *you posed *, is that not a reasonable answer to your original post?

Now that i am Catholic, it chills me, because it shows the utter wickedness of government intrusion into charitable activity, family matters, and even economic issues–in short, the destruction of subsidiarity.

If the government pays even for education and nothing else, it will pay less if there are fewer children to educate. If the governemnt gives money to poor people, it will have to give less if there are fewer children. If the government decides that young people are a glut on the labor market, it will force them into school and unions will require a high school diploma, and it will be impractical to marry young; if the government benefits corporations who all our manufacturing jobs overseas, people will not be able to afford to start families without higher education, and even that has to come to an end sometime, not to mention that some people are simply not suited to that type of work. And if governments make it very difficult to start one’s own business, or even to move up out of poverty, then things become even worse.

The more I learn, the worse things look.

Seems to be a trend of bashing government, even when the thread is not about government. I really fail to see how offering birth control will effect society other than making it available to those that currently can’t due to largely economic reasons. But I am not about to wade into those waters.

But again, back to your original title of this thread “Why should anyone be forced to pay for the abc of others?”. My point would be you similarly have no reason to force others to pay for a voluntarily large family. At least, without getting into the weeds of the effects of social engineering. There is little in the secular realm to argue against offering the service. Which might have been your point all along…?

 

[St_Francis]

Well, wait a second. You asked why we should pay for birth control. You seemed to make it mostly a matter of finance (asking why we should pay, morality aside). Meaning, the cost to provide a level of medical service. My point is simply that providing this service (birth control) may mathematically be cheaper, or at a minimum a wash, to not providing birth control. If this is potentially true, for the sake of the question *you posed *, is that not a reasonable answer to your original post?

Yes, that was why I said I could not think of a secular argument against what you said. I can’t say that I agree, because I see other aspects of the issue, but I see that you are correct in the way I framed the question.

Seems to be a trend of bashing government, even when the thread is not about government.

I’m sorry, realizing the correctness of what you wrote revealed all that to me. I didn’t mean to bash the government per se, but more about how our society, as reflected in the government, has changed over many decades–I actually originally wrote “we” but changed it to government because I thought “we” could be confusing.

I really fail to see how offering birth control will effect society other than making it available to those that currently can’t due to largely economic reasons. But I am not about to wade into those waters.

Since I was born over 50 years ago and have seen some of the changes that at least accompanied increased access to abc and more reliable abc, I can assure you that the changes are widespread. In addition, we have lost much of what little subsidiarity we had left in the late 1950s/early 1960s, and that too has had a bad effect.

But again, back to your original title of this thread “Why should anyone be forced to pay for the abc of others?”. My point would be you similarly have no reason to force others to pay for a voluntarily large family. At least, without getting into the weeds of the effects of social engineering. There is little in the secular realm to argue against offering the service. Which might have been your point all along…?

 

[St_Francis]

Well, wait a second. *You asked why we should pay for birth control. *You seemed to make it mostly a matter of finance (asking why we should pay, morality aside). *Meaning, the cost to provide a level of medical service. *My point is simply that providing this service (birth control) may mathematically be cheaper, or at a minimum a wash, to not providing birth control. *If this is potentially true, for the sake of the question *you posed *, is that not a reasonable answer to your original post?

Yes, that was why I said I could not think of a secular argument against what you said. I can’t say that I agree, because I see other aspects of the issue, but I see that you are correct in the way I framed the question.

Seems to be a trend of bashing government, even when the thread is not about government.

I’m sorry, realizing the correctness of what you wrote revealed all that to me. I didn’t mean to bash the government per se, but more about how our society, as reflected in the government, has changed over many decades–I actually originally wrote “we” but changed it to government because I thought “we” could be confusing.

*I really fail to see how offering birth control will effect society other than making it available to those that currently can’t due to largely economic reasons. *But I am not about to wade into those waters.

Since I was born over 50 years ago and have seen some of the changes that at least accompanied increased access to abc and more reliable abc, I can assure you that the changes are widespread. In addition, we have lost much of what little subsidiarity we had left in the late 1950s/early 1960s, and that too has had a bad effect.

But again, back to your original title of this thread “Why should anyone be forced to pay for the abc of others?”. *My point would be you similarly have no reason to force others to pay for a voluntarily large family. *At least, without getting into the weeds of the effects of social engineering. *There is little in the secular realm to argue against offering the service. *Which might have been your point all along…?

No, It was just a thought I had, not all the way thought through…*

My reaction to what you are saying is complex and still only partial, from the point of view of my entire self. It’s seeing how looking at issues in a purely secularist/financial completely devalues persons on many levels.*

I don’t think the solution is to do what the government is doing–btdt–but at the same time, there have been many changes in our society which have also affected this situation.

 

[agnes_therese]

In a word: careful. The Church needs to be careful not to be seen as overreaching, demanding special privileges. I detect a strong underlying resentment of Catholicism in the USA, perhaps especially pronounced among ex-Catholics.
.

It is hardly “demanding special privileges” to expect the Constitution to be followed. We are guaranteed (supposedly) the right to free exercise of our religion. This HHS mandate is a direct attack on that right. Those who don’t care because it’s “only a Catholic” issue had best think what might come next.

 

[St_Francis]

Well, I think your questions can be answered from a secular perspective by these questions: why should we be expected to pay for other people’s pregnancies, and resulting children up to the age of 18, especially for single people. When a woman gets pregnant, and can’t afford to finance the pregnancy or raise the child herself, she applies for medicaid and her medical bills are paid for. Then after the child is born, she is eligible for WIC, food stamps and stipends. When the child is old enough to go to school, the WIC and foodstamps are cut back a bit, but then the child gets free lunches at school. The child gets free health insurance for 18 years. The State pays quite a bit and so some would say, why do my taxes have to support other people’s kids when they can just go on birth control, and be taught to use them properly. Like it or not, when used properly, ABCs are quite effective at controlling births…just look at the average family size. Note that the bigger families are the exception, rather than the common.*

The horse has been out of the barn for quite some time, way too long for it to be brought back in just because Catholics and other relgious groups preach against premarital sex. People are very much used to, and very much like, having sex without consequences. And there really is no ethical or moral way to stop them. So they will have sex, and they will want it without consequences. If people who can’t afford to pay their own medical expenses, and raise their children, are afforded birth control by the government, then married people who do not share the Catholic Church’s rules against birth control, will want a piece of the action. Afterall, they are married. And yes, quite a many people think that it’s perfectly acceptable to have sex anytime with their spouse and are not interested in NFP, which has a poor reputation all around (from being difficult to learn, difficult to follow, burdensome to marriages and just plain not effective for many).*

The government feels it is in their best interest to cut costs by providing birth control. It’s also in the best interest of the insurance companies as well. The cost of supporting a child’s medical expenses (and more) is quite a bit more costly than providing birth control pills. At the rate WIC, food stamps, stipends and medical expenses are sucked dry by various applicants, I’m not surprised we don’t all get little pink packages direct from HHS straight to our doors.

Hmmm, it seems that you and Iowa5 are both saying that because we (as a society and through the government) are suporting and educating the children, we should minimize the number of children born.

But we are actually only supporting the children of the poor, except for education (which would therefore be a separate situation). So why should we all be involved in paying for the abc of people who are not poor? If the people have jobs, then they are not too poor to afford condoms, are they? (I have no idea how much they cost, but surely they can’t be that expensive?) And probably most of the people working would be able to afford co-pays and the like.*

The whole secular argument for paying for abc, voluntary sterilization, and abortificient drugs seems to rest on government aid for the poor and the fact that providing abc, voluntary sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs is the simplest and most cost-effective solution.

Which just leads me back to my previous depressing conclusion about how this is all devaluing people… I can’t seem to get away from it. Maybe that should be my next question.

 

[jlhargus]

Well, I think your questions can be answered from a secular perspective by these questions: why should we be expected to pay for other people’s pregnancies, and resulting children up to the age of 18, especially for single people. When a woman gets pregnant, and can’t afford to finance the pregnancy or raise the child herself, she applies for medicaid and her medical bills are paid for. Then after the child is born, she is eligible for WIC, food stamps and stipends. When the child is old enough to go to school, the WIC and foodstamps are cut back a bit, but then the child gets free lunches at school. The child gets free health insurance for 18 years.

JL: We render to Caesar what is Ceasars’. What Caesar does with that tax money is his decision and choice. We may not like it and can work to change it, but it doen’t FORCE us to violate our faith or concience. With Obama Care employer’s MUST directly provide and pay for things that are contrary to their faith and concience or be fined. Leaving people without any insurance for REAL medical needs plus those so called invented health rights for NON medical needs.

How is anyone DENIED ACCESS to contraception? Contraception is readily available and affordable for those who want it. Planned Parenthood hands contraception out like candy. Can you tell me how contraception, sterilization and abortion inducing drugs are a HEALTH RIGHT for anyone? If Ceasar wants those services provided let Caesar pay for them. Let them pay for them with food stamps as I’m sure many already do. At lest that wouldn’t violate anyone concience.

 

[Iowa7681]

Since I was born over 50 years ago and have seen some of the changes that at least accompanied increased access to abc and more reliable abc, I can assure you that the changes are widespread. In addition, we have lost much of what little subsidiarity we had left in the late 1950s/early 1960s, and that too has had a bad effect.

This is correct, but I think what I and other are saying is that providing free/low cost birth control will do nothing to change this. What you just posted already happened without the government providing/pushing any birth control. I, as well as most, have access to very inexpensive and convenient birth control. So, all this legislation will *effectively * do is catch those people on the economic fringe, or, those that are so inept they literally need a healthcare company to mail them a monthly package of pills, as they wouldn’t do it on their own.

So, while I agree with what you say, I still fail to see how this universal offering of coverage will have any practical effect. I think the cost is minimal, if not null, it wont really change the usage of birth control overall, with the exception of mostly economically disadvantaged.

Really, to me, it comes down as a matter of principal, not facts or finance. I only see a losing cause arguing the simple economics or effects. Now, the morality of forcing birth control coverage can still be made. I leave that issue to others to craft a persuasive case!

 

[St_Francis]

This is correct, but I think what I and other are saying is that providing free/low cost birth control will do nothing to change this. What you just posted already happened without the government providing/pushing any birth control. I, as well as most, have access to very inexpensive and convenient birth control. So, all this legislation will *effectively * do is catch those people on the economic fringe, or, those that are so inept they literally need a healthcare company to mail them a monthly package of pills, as they wouldn’t do it on their own.

So, while I agree with what you say, I still fail to see how this universal offering of coverage will have any practical effect. I think the cost is minimal, if not null, it wont really change the usage of birth control overall, with the exception of mostly economically disadvantaged.

Really, to me, it comes down as a matter of principal, not facts or finance. I only see a losing cause arguing the simple economics or effects. Now, the morality of forcing birth control coverage can still be made. I leave that issue to others to craft a persuasive case!

Well, I feel somewhat bemused. I have the impression you think I said something I don’t realize I said. Your responses seem more argumentative than I expect.

 

[Joe_5859]

But again, back to your original title of this thread “Why should anyone be forced to pay for the abc of others?”. My point would be you similarly have no reason to force others to pay for a voluntarily large family. At least, without getting into the weeds of the effects of social engineering. There is little in the secular realm to argue against offering the service. Which might have been your point all along…?

The problem with this counter-argument is the implicit assumption that people are solely a drain on society. Beyond being somewhat insulting, it is also not true. People are necessary to contribute to society. It’s more than a little cynical to use as our guiding principle the assumption that people are fundamentally just resource-consuming leeches.

When all the kids from the large families are the only thing sustaining the social security system, perhaps people’s attitudes will change.