Question about the Sandra Fluke; Rush Limbaugh bru-ha-ha...

[Guest cardcutter]

society will not change as long as there is no stigma attached to bad behavior.

The reason we are over run with the welfare types is that they are no longer held accountable for their own actions.

If you want to lay up and get pregnant don't expect me to pay for it.

If you want to lie around and not work then starve.

They may say "it's for the children" well you need to take care of your own and quit asking us to do it for you.

If you want whore around don't get upset when you are called a slut.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks 6.8 and cardcutter

I don't have firm ideas on it and can see different sides. On the birth control thang, some "pro-lifers" only claim to have a beef about late-term abortions, others mid-term and after, and others are against any including "abortion-like" birth control methods. The basic operating principle ought to be "as little gov and regulation that we can get away with" but it is the question about how much that happens to be.

Some conservatives have opined that any woman should have tubes ties or be on norplant as a condition to receive welfare. Well, as far as I know norplant is no longer available in usa because of technical difficulties, but hope such conservatives are not also pro-lifers. The norplant has the same mechanism as birth control pills. They suppress ovulation, but in cases where ovulation and fertilization happen, they work to prevent implantation of the viable egg. Norplant and BC pills are just "pre-emptive" abortion.

Similarly the morning-after pills are just real strong birth control pills. A person who is morally opposed to the legal distribution of morning-after pills, if being consistent, ought to be equally morally opposed to any kind of birth control pill. Both kinds of pills do the same thing. The morning after pill is just stronger.

IUD's are said to have several mechanisms of action, but basically IUD's also perform "pre-emptive" abortions.

====

On the welfare issue-- It doesn't matter how unsympathetic you or I might be-- Welfare is here to stay unless the nation crashes and falls apart. Short of TEOTWAWKI, if by some miracle politicians would ever get elected who abolish welfare, then those guys will get voted out on the very next election and their replacements will resume mailing out the welfare checks.

On a dollars and sense aspect-- It is difficult to find solid numbers. Could not find a reference listing our TOTAL outlay per child on welfare. I found a USDA paper claiming that in 2009, below-average-income single parent families pay about $11,500 per year per child. Maybe lower-middle-class kids get a little more spent on em than welfare kids, but the big-ticket items listed by USDA such as food, housing, medical-- Somebody has to be paying it so if it ain't the parent then possibly it is the taxpayer. Then add-in the $8000 per year or whatever for public school per student. Pehaps there are other major incidental "public" expenses per child. Ballpark figure at least maybe $20,000 per child per year?

Just sayin, "free" gov birth control wouldn't cost us anywhere near $20,000 per year per mom.