sandra fluke

[bcneil]

The problem is that the financial side of the argument is already loaded in favor of giving out the pill or and inject-able free The cost of a single mother with one child on welfare for a year is far over the cost of a lifetime supply of contraceptives.

But, in order to be "morally correct", there are people that would rather pay a minimum of a half a million in benefits to the woman that they wouldn't give the pill or an abortion to.

What they persistently ignore is that a woman who becomes a mother as a teenager is never going to become self supporting without help. Any option that means that she doesn't become a mother is much less expensive. If she chooses to have a child because of her own moral outlook, society would save money by paying her to go to school for 4 years and making her self sufficient.

The real Conservative outlook is always to choose the option that is least expensive for the taxpayer. NOT the option that is going to make her another expensive "welfare mom" because of some stupid "moral correctness".

You are right.
I just find it amusing, that the argument against providing birth control is based on money.
When based only money alone, its so far off.
Unwanted children are so expensive in so many ways. For insurance companies, for taxpayers, for society.
Compared to the price of the pill.........its comical.

Of course if this women is too poor to pay for the pill isn't married, then she should never have sex anyways.
So all these calculations are moot. Otherwise she is a slut.

I think if these people would at least be honest. "we don't think the pill should be paid for, is cause our lord jesus christ said so"
"we believe contraception is wrong, because sex is to make babies only, not for fun."

At least that is their belief.

Its the same crowd that talk about getting the death penalty, as a way to save them tax dollars.

 

[Devo]

You guys are assuming that giving out free birth control will solve or even impact the problem of single mothers on welfare. I would be very surprised if there was any correlation whatsoever. It does however fit in nicely to the Socialist utopia agenda.

 

[bcneil]

You guys are assuming that giving out free birth control will solve or even impact the problem of single mothers on welfare. I would be very surprised if there was any correlation whatsoever. It does however fit in nicely to the Socialist utopia agenda.

So you are concerned that there are some women, who are playing the welfare system, and having these kids on purpose. And many woman do.

So your conclusion against providing the pill for women who cannot afford it......is some of them wont want to take advantage of this?????

You really believe that providing birth control to the other women....the ones who want it....but cannot afford it.
That there would be no statistical correlation whatsoever, in reduction of pregnancy????

 

[Horse99]

Why should the government pay for everything? Don't you realize, it's either taxes or debt that pay for this? and what the government gives, it can take away.

 

[Devo]

Not to mention, if I, a Real Conservative, was the boss of everything I would change the laws on welfare so that people couldn't just keep having more children. What I would offer is free contraception, free abortions if contraception didn't work, free education to make the person employable.

The numbers are all in support of that approach. Both free contraception and free abortions are less expensive than a single year of supporting a single welfare mom with 1 child. If her personal morality is that she doesn't support either free contraception or free abortion - then she gets an offer of 4 years of education.

If the person refuses to get out of the "poverty trap", additional children don't increase their social benefits and don't remove the necessity to provide "job search" validation to enable continued social benefit payments. In other words, make it much more attractive to take the offer of free contraception and/or free abortion and/or free education for 4 years.

Education should not be limited to college. Many don't do well in college, but do well in jobs where they use their hands.

Do you think that the majority of single mothers on welfare end up that way because they can't afford birth control or maybe

1) They forget to take their birth control?
2) They improperly took their birth control?
3) They intentionally have kids to live off the welfare system?
4) They think that the father of their child is "the one" and they will live happily ever after. Some of you will be shocked to learn that many young guys will lie about their intentions to get laid.
5) They watch MTV and think that it would be "cool" to have a cute little baby.

Your idea of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars for free birth control will have little to no impact on the above scenarios.

 

[Devo]

Why should the government pay for everything? Don't you realize, it's either taxes or debt that pay for this? and what the government gives, it can take away.

You sir are absolutely correct. I hope what you meant to say is "what the government gives, it can't take away".

 

[Asianwomanlover]

Good points are being made on both sides of the equation. I guess what bothers me with the "Let's pay (i.e the taxpayers) for the women's contraceptive needs" is the fact we don't expect people to actually be responsible for their own actions. This leads to government taking more control of our lives little by little, until the social engineers then end up deciding everything for us.

 

[PlayfulAlex]

...If the person refuses to get out of the "poverty trap", additional children don't increase their social benefits and don't remove the necessity to provide "job search" validation to enable continued social benefit payments.

Well, I'm not a politician but isn't it the children that then pay the price for mommy's indiscretions? Three children, then 4, then 5, all having to survive on the same income...until they're old enough to fend for themselves but, by that time, they're totally f*cked up by their upbringing in poverty?

Is this really the answer, AiB?

 

[PlayfulAlex]

...Do you really think that a woman who is offered the choice of an education over being poor for the rest of her life is going to say "nah, I'm too lazy to go to school"?

Oh my dear, I generally like reading your intelligent posts, but this problem is huge/deep and your solution is too simplistic. Behaviours/choices are multi-layered. I never said that people liked being poor. But funding for education is only one small piece of a very huge puzzle called Poverty. If only it were that simple...

 

[Devo]

In Canada, we have a different problem. We have Native Indian Reservations where there are no opportunities. Even with a full family unit, neither parent works or can work. There are no jobs, there are no schools past elementary

There are many instances in Canada of businesses located in close proximity to Indian Reserves that are forced to bring in workers from Mexico and Latin America to fill their jobs. The notion that high unemployment on most reserves is due to lack of opportunity is simply ridiculous.

It does however make a nice talking point for the Socialists and all the other parasites-lawyers that make a good living off the "Indian Industry"

 

[Tugela]

In the USA they have the problem of a "welfare mom" culture. Half measures won't break that. In Canada, we have a different problem. We have Native Indian Reservations where there are no opportunities. Even with a full family unit, neither parent works or can work. There are no jobs, there are no schools past elementary grades. If a Native Indian wants work or education, they must leave the Reserve. It seldom works. The addiction levels on the Reserves mean that the Children come down already addicted.

So, different solutions are necessary. I really do think what I suggested would work in the USA. In Canada, we have to make a condition of resource extraction that corporations train and hire a Native Indian workforce. When a pipeline runs through, a condition must be that the majority of the employees building it are Native Indian. When a mine is started, a condition must be that the majority of the employees are Native Indian.

When corporations are presented with necessity, they'll quickly discover that they can afford the necessary educational facilities.

Couple that with an active sex education, drug education, free birth control and free abortions and Canada would make a dent in the problem we now have.

With that newly acquired workforce, we wouldn't need to scour the world for miners.

Yes, I know that I shouldn't have suggested the same solution for both Canada and the USA. The "welfare mom" problem in the USA is in the major cities, is generational and is the result of deliberate government policies.

The "welfare mom" problem in Canada is mostly on the Indian Reserves and is again the result of deliberate government policies. What really aggravates the "welfare mom" problem in Canada is the Residential School experience deprived two generations of the ability to even be a parent. It shouldn't surprise anyone that their children don't know how to be parents.

If De Beers had had to have 90% Native Indian employees, Attawapiskat wouldn't have not had any school at all for the past 6 years, nor would they have had a shortage of housing.

How so? You can mandate affirmative action and end up with inefficient work forces (it is effectively the same thing as a closed shop union environment) but that would still not send tax dollars back to the reservations to pay for social services. These companies do have aboriginal employees right now, but those employees dont live on reservation and therefore dont pay taxes to the reservation. The basic source of income at the local level is property tax, but if all the people earning income are not living locally you can have all the affirmative action you want and the problems at Attawapiskat will not go away. How exactly do you propose extracting all this easily won money out of the hands of the employees? The issue with that community (and probably many others like it in rural areas) is that it has no real reason for being other than that people have lived there in the past.

The only way for your plan to work is to tell Aboriginal people that you HAVE to live here, you HAVE to do this job, you HAVE to do that or this. You would have to take most of their freedom away in the name of protecting culture. Because if you don't do that most will do the same as any other human being and do what is good for them personally and not what is good for an isolated community.

You know, I went to university, and went as far as you can go education-wise. All my siblings went to university. But we came from a family of very modest means. Both my parents grew up in large impoverished families. But even though they themselves had no education (my dad ended school when he was 15, my mom when she was 13, both to go to work to help support the family), it was something they valued because it was something they never had a chance to get. They worked hard and even though they were never rich they provided enough of a foundation and instilled enough values for their kids to go as far as they wanted to go. No one gave us a free ride, we had to work for everything. So it just pisses me off when people come up with all these proposals for special protections and benefits. Oh, these people are so helpless and incapable that we have to hold their hands while they piss, it breaks my heart. Really. I don't give a rats ass what happened to their grandparents, because the same thing probably happened to mine. Water under the bridge, ancient history involving someone else, move on.

Here is the thing: unless these communities and individuals WANT to change, they WILL NOT, no matter how big a handout you give them. And if they really WANT to change, they WILL do so with the tools they have now. And I know this because LOTS of people and communities have done precisely that in the past. It is a state of mind that comes from within, not material things that are expected and given to you as your birthright. Their problem does not come from outside, it is not someone else screwing them over, it comes from within themselves, and THAT is the problem they need to address first and foremost if they want to move forward in a constructive way.

 

[the old maxx50]

Sham on you guys for some of you comments about women having children just to get social assistance ..

You really think that is what most women think?

First off contraception is both men and women's responsibility . For every baby born there is a man .( or an ass hole) that is the father. If he did not want to take precautions ,, then i guess he was willing to support the child .. Yah that does not seem to always be the case ..

Of course the first line of stopping conception starts with the women , Weather she decides to take birth control , use a condom , , say no to unsafe sex or take other action when or before she is pregnant .

Some women can not take birth control pills, some can't use condoms , and the truth is many women that get pregnant ,want to have a child weather there is a father around to support them or not , Some thing a bout a biological clock and the need to nuerchure They are willing to try to support them selves ,. Just like many of the ladies do that work in the sex trade business ..
They are not all trying to have kids just to get payed by the state .

 

[doctorkoma]

The American insurance companies have already agreed to add birth control pils to their plans without kiking premiums. They know it will save them a lot of money.

 

[DavidMR]

How so? You can mandate affirmative action and end up with inefficient work forces (it is effectively the same thing as a closed shop union environment)...

Measurements that have been done show that union environments, as well as being better paid, also have higher productivity. It would be hard to know what is meant by affirmative action without a definition, but the idea that employment equity in Canada has reduced the quality of public services (police, fire, armed services, civilian agencies) is hard to justify. Police officers do not need to be six feet tall, and women can perform trades in the services. So can Aboriginals.

 

[Boneman]

In the words of the immortal Neil Young "welfare mothers make better lovers"

 

[wilde]

Weather she decides

I thought that was mother nature's job!?

 

[DavidMR]

And even President Obama has commented on Limbaugh's slur of Sandra Fluke.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...a-Fluke-slutgate-furor.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

[Tugela]

Measurements that have been done show that union environments, as well as being better paid, also have higher productivity. It would be hard to know what is meant by affirmative action without a definition, but the idea that employment equity in Canada has reduced the quality of public services (police, fire, armed services, civilian agencies) is hard to justify. Police officers do not need to be six feet tall, and women can perform trades in the services. So can Aboriginals.

That must be why the US auto industry fell on its face. Higher productivity.

Not to mention personal experience. I have seen situations where high productivity contract employees have been laid by the way to make room for some unionized worker whose job had been eliminated elsewhere in the organization, even though that worker didn't want to do the work we needed, and just sat on her ass. And we couldn't get rid of her because of union rules and her seniority. Ya, unions are GREAT for productivity.

 

[Devo]

Actually a single union isn't that bad. Ford and GM both worked to "rationalize" their union structure. What is bad is what is happening with Air Canada. Settle one contract and then be faced with strike action by another. I know that I haven't flown Air Canada for years and don't have the faintest intention of flying with them.

I can't imagine even one instance of where a union would be better. Whenever you can't terminate or discipline poor performers it will hurt the organization. Promoting someone based on their start date rather than their ability and initiative breeds poor performance.

Nothing is worse however when you combine the inherent incompetency of a government agency with a union.

 

[DavidMR]

I don't know where the idea that unions prevent dismissal of actual incompetents comes from, other than it's clearly an urban legend popular among those on the remote right, or those with economic interests that are served by reducing wages through de-unionization and hostile public policy. Unions will resist managements attempts to fire someone for little or no cause, but if the person is genuinely failing management's argument will prevail and will be upheld on arbitration.

Some with friends or relatives in management roles will put out the intentionally misleading allegation that unions deliberately protect people they know to be utterly incompetent. Why unions would want to do this is never explained, but it's part of the overall theory some people put out that unions are completely and utterly irrational. What these people in managerial roles are actually angry about is that unions protect people from arbitrary or unjust dismissal, which is seen by people who are personally invested in their roles as management as some kind of frustrating limitation on their power, and in some cases "power trip".