Poll of the Day > What gives you the right to go through my pockets for birth control?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Taxation is theft and birth control is a sin
---

You mean like if I'm naked in bed and handcuffed and the condoms are in my pants pocket you don't have the right to go get them?
---

If you write the government a cheque for all the government-owned utilities and services you use, you can count the total against your tax bill and you won't have to pay anything because you'll have spent much more money that way.

Don't forget to include a stipend for the military and police protection you enjoy!
---

Popcorn.gif

Pretty sure the bible doesn't mention birth control.
---

Pretty sure the Bible doesnt mention looking up biracial gay rape fantasy porn on the internet either. Still a sin.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Pretty sure the bible doesn't mention birth control.

it actually mentions pulling out (a form of birth control), amazingly in the very first book of the bible too. Not to put into question your knowledge of what's in the bible, just that saying "pretty sure" about something that's explicitly stated in the very first book of the bible, well that does tend to come off as somewhat ignorant on the subject

Though the whole birth control is a sin subject is interesting. Do the majority of churches even teach this nowadays? I thought it was only hardline conservative catholics that still followed that practice

The right to party
---

MrMelodramatic posted...

Pretty sure the Bible doesnt mention looking up biracial gay rape fantasy porn on the internet either. Still a sin.

Can't be a sin if it didn't exist in biblical times.

nesrtkfan posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Pretty sure the bible doesn't mention birth control.

it actually mentions pulling out (a form of birth control), amazingly in the very first book of the bible too. Not to put into question your knowledge of what's in the bible, just that saying "pretty sure" about something that's explicitly stated in the very first book of the bible, well that does tend to come off as somewhat ignorant on the subject

Though the whole birth control is a sin subject is interesting. Do the majority of churches even teach this nowadays? I thought it was only hardline conservative catholics that still followed that practice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M" data-time="
---

Delicinq4 posted...

I dont really care. I can see how it may be annoying for men that women are getting all sorts of things subsidized now (tampons, birth control, etc) and they arent getting anything,

Whoa there. Birth control is also for men. It may be women that end up physically receiving it, but those women's partners get to reap all the same benefits that the women do (at least as far as using it as birth control goes, and ignoring the therapeutic applications of BC pills and hormonal IUD's). Painting subsidized birth control as "women getting something that men don't" is ignoring the fundamental purpose of birth control (that is, to let men and women have sex with each other without making a baby, which both parties enjoy unless one of them is really bad at it).
---

adjl posted...

Delicinq4 posted...

I dont really care. I can see how it may be annoying for men that women are getting all sorts of things subsidized now (tampons, birth control, etc) and they arent getting anything,

Whoa there. Birth control is also for men. It may be women that end up physically receiving it, but those women's partners get to reap all the same benefits that the women do (at least as far as using it as birth control goes, and ignoring the therapeutic applications of BC pills and hormonal IUD's). Painting subsidized birth control as "women getting something that men don't" is ignoring the fundamental purpose of birth control (that is, to let men and women have sex with each other without making a baby, which both parties enjoy unless one of them is really bad at it).

Men's birth control is just a condom though.
---

Revelation34 posted...

adjl posted...

Delicinq4 posted...

I dont really care. I can see how it may be annoying for men that women are getting all sorts of things subsidized now (tampons, birth control, etc) and they arent getting anything,

Whoa there. Birth control is also for men. It may be women that end up physically receiving it, but those women's partners get to reap all the same benefits that the women do (at least as far as using it as birth control goes, and ignoring the therapeutic applications of BC pills and hormonal IUD's). Painting subsidized birth control as "women getting something that men don't" is ignoring the fundamental purpose of birth control (that is, to let men and women have sex with each other without making a baby, which both parties enjoy unless one of them is really bad at it).

Men's birth control is just a condom though.

Which are already available for free in many places, and also aren't really adequate for long-term birth control (85% effectiveness with normal use), nor cost-effective (presuming a reasonable level of sexual activity). It'd be great to see more viable long-term options that are administered to men (the only male-centric alternative to condoms is a vasectomy, and that's not a temporary solution), in which case any subsidy programs should obviously apply to them as well, but for now, female-centric options are naturally going to be the primary targets for subsidies.

And, in the event that something like Vasalgel makes it to market and becomes a target for birth control subsidy programs, looking at that as "men getting something that women don't" will similarly be missing the fundamental point of birth control. Subsidized birth control really should not be viewed as a gendered issue, no matter who's receiving the treatments in question.

_AdjI_ posted...

Which are already available for free in many places, and also aren't really adequate for long-term birth control (85% effectiveness with normal use), nor cost-effective (presuming a reasonable level of sexual activity). It'd be great to see more viable long-term options that are administered to men (the only male-centric alternative to condoms is a vasectomy, and that's not a temporary solution), in which case any subsidy programs should obviously apply to them as well, but for now, female-centric options are naturally going to be the primary targets for subsidies.

And, in the event that something like Vasalgel makes it to market and becomes a target for birth control subsidy programs, looking at that as "men getting something that women don't" will similarly be missing the fundamental point of birth control. Subsidized birth control really should not be viewed as a gendered issue, no matter who's receiving the treatments in question

I guess they could try developing a pill too.
---

Mead posted...

The right to party

---

darkknight109 posted...

If you write the government a cheque for all the government-owned utilities and services you use, you can count the total against your tax bill and you won't have to pay anything because you'll have spent much more money that way.

Don't forget to include a stipend for the military and police protection you enjoy!

1. So the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes, except when you want to disparage middle class workers for not contributing their fair share? Whatever fits the narrative apparently, as long as the end result is more income being taken from the public and transferred to government.

2. You know that less than two percent of taxes go to roads, and less than five percent to law enforcement, right? You know where the majority of the tax revenue goes? Towards both corporate and conventional welfare, and to enrich the military industrial complex. It's cute that you think that the military's prerogative with the endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc all have anything to do with public safety.
---

I agree that taxation is theft and that what I'm forced to give up shouldn't fund irresponsible people.
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

I agree that taxation is theft and that what I'm forced to give up shouldn't fund irresponsible people.

Yeah we can talk about the economic benefits of publicly funded birth control all we want but morally speaking I shouldn't be forced to fund some trailer trash lady's birth control (no matter how miniscule the actual amount is). But there are a lot of different taxes that I shouldn't be forced to pay morally speaking