dasein Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 They are living, like a parasite, completely dependent upon another living organism (biologically, not metaphorically or situationally). They are simple not people --- not in the scientific sense of what it means to be human. Glad to hear you don't mind men opting out at this stage then just as women can... right? Just a parasite, right? No one here is suggesting men should be able to opt out after that early stage. I don't see single motherhood as a "cash cow" industry as you say It is, across much of the U.S., particularly in rural areas where COL is low. Each child brings with it $200 a month in food benefits and some measure of actual cash payments, vastly more than it takes to feed a child. As a single adult man, I spend about $200 a month on food, and eat -very- well. Quality protein and other nutritious food has never been cheaper than they are in the U.S. today. Two kids and mom = $600 a month, a -bounty- of food can be bought for that... or the cards can be traded for meth, cigs, beer and lottery tickets. I don't know the amount of DFACS benefits per child in my area, nor do I know the amount of average unemployment, $1100 per month sticks in my head for some reason as the unemployment number. These women are expert at gaming the system, and work only long enough to qualify for unemployment, then back to the pool at the swank Section 8 apartment they go until the unemployment runs out. Such healthy ethics and lifestyle to instill in one's offspring. Then there's the actual child/mother support, which averages between $350-600 a month. Some of my friends pay up to several thousand dollars a month, the highest I've heard of among my friends is $6500 a month for two kids. So in my area at least, they do quite well. If they want to live in Boston, LA or Manhattan, well them's the breaks. If dad can't pay, no lawyer will take his case to get an adjustment, he gets second rate attention from an overburdened legal aid lawyer (who is very often a "lawyer cum social worker" lefty, and -completely- unsympathetic to his situation). He is often illiterate and distrustful of the legal system to begin with. He ends up in jail, due to an unconstitutional application of "civil contempt," because "deadbeat dads" have no standing in this country to avoid debtors prison (unlike the rest of us), mixing with "all the right people" breeding a whole new generation of career criminals. -- most single mothers I've met live FAR below my standard of living, regardless of how hard they work. Relevant how? Not. However, I actually would have no problem removing children from mothers who prove unfit by refusing to be a productive member of society. Since we are social engineers, let's disincent the birth rate, require fathers be notified and have opportunity to confront the mother pre abortion, and let them opt out early in the pregnancy. But oh yeah, that takes the -money- away.
somedude81 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Even $180 a year isn't that much. I wonder how much a years supply of condoms would cost or the pill for that matter. Of course, I would gladly split the difference if I was steady with somebody. As for the side-effects, those things you just have to find out if it will happen to you or not. As far as I've read, there will always be women who will have adverse side-effects to all forms of birth control. Just got to find the one that works best.
xxoo Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Even $180 a year isn't that much. I wonder how much a years supply of condoms would cost or the pill for that matter. Of course, I would gladly split the difference if I was steady with somebody. As for the side-effects, those things you just have to find out if it will happen to you or not. As far as I've read, there will always be women who will have adverse side-effects to all forms of birth control. Just got to find the one that works best. The Pill costs about $30/month, but can be $15-50/month. That doesn't include the required yearly exam. Price of condoms depends on how many you use a month. As a funny aside, Rush Limbaugh seemed to think that pills worked the same way, and women who needed a lot of money for BCP were using too many of them (having too much sex) If you have side effects with the pill, you can stop taking them and the side effects reverse quickly. If you have side effects to the depo shot, there is no reversal. The effects can last 14 weeks No, thanks!
somedude81 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The Pill costs about $30/month, but can be $15-50/month. That doesn't include the required yearly exam. Hmm, it sounds like it can be more than depo. Price of condoms depends on how many you use a month. As a funny aside, Rush Limbaugh seemed to think that pills worked the same way, and women who needed a lot of money for BCP were using too many of them (having too much sex) LOL, at needing to pop a pill every time you have sex. Then the price of condoms is dependent on how many use a month. I didn't actually think about regular use. I don't have a clue how many times the average couple has sex in a month. Guessing, twice a week, so eight times a month. Checking the price of condoms on Safeway/Vons, a 12 pack is about $12 so $1 each makes the math simple. 8 times a month, 96 times a year, so about $100 a year just in case you're above quota for the year Looks like condoms are actually the cheaper solution. And I'm sure they are even less expensive if bought in bulk. If you have side effects with the pill, you can stop taking them and the side effects reverse quickly. If you have side effects to the depo shot, there is no reversal. The effects can last 14 weeks No, thanks! Still not really a reason to not try it.
zengirl Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Glad to hear you don't mind men opting out at this stage then just as women can... right? Just a parasite, right? No one here is suggesting men should be able to opt out after that early stage. Opting out of paying. . . I personally have no problem and outlined such a way very carefully. Trying to rip something out of someone else's body? Yes, I have a problem with that. And I never said it WAS a parasite. I used scientific terms to state it behaves as such. It is, across much of the U.S., particularly in rural areas where COL is low. Each child brings with it $200 a month in food benefits and some measure of actual cash payments, vastly more than it takes to feed a child. As a single adult man, I spend about $200 a month on food, and eat -very- well. Quality protein and other nutritious food has never been cheaper than they are in the U.S. today. Two kids and mom = $600 a month, a -bounty- of food can be bought for that... or the cards can be traded for meth, cigs, beer and lottery tickets. And that's nowhere near a fun lifestyle, IMO. I feel SORRY for those people; you feel angry at them. That's the difference, honestly, and the answer to your "relevant, how?" question. Someone would have to HEAVILY game the system (and just not that many do -- it's rare) to earn enough to have even a decent lifestyle that way. I see more people like the Dad on Shameless (many are women, yes, I'm not making it a gender thing--it's just a show I was watching today) gaming the system. All I have for them is pity. I'll gladly pay taxes and let society help out the few who choose to live that way. Honestly. I don't see them as devious geniuses. . . I see them as sad, living lifestyles far below my own. If dad can't pay, no lawyer will take his case to get an adjustment, he gets second rate attention from an overburdened legal aid lawyer (who is very often a "lawyer cum social worker" lefty, and -completely- unsympathetic to his situation). He is often illiterate and distrustful of the legal system to begin with. He ends up in jail, due to an unconstitutional application of "civil contempt," because "deadbeat dads" have no standing in this country to avoid debtors prison (unlike the rest of us), mixing with "all the right people" breeding a whole new generation of career criminals. I do disagree with jail for anyone for not paying their debts, including this. Of course, jail for child support is extremely rare, but it should be impossible. On that, we do not disagree. Still not really a reason to not try it. 14 potential weeks of vomiting, nausea, clinical depression, anxiety, physical pain, bad cramping, and a hit to your metabolism that may be permanent don't sound like a reason not to "try" it? Really?
Feelsgoodman Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Also... male contraceptives sound like the best idea ever! Except when you start experiencing side effects years down the road! We are not talking Tylenol here. "The Pill" works by messing with your hormones. Widespread pill use is one of the reasons why American females are so screwed up nowadays (both physically and psychologically). The two main side effects of the Pill are weight gain (physical) and mood swings (psychological). It's no wonder America is filled with overweight BPD women. A recent study showed that 25% of all American women take mental-health drugs. Gee, no wonder! First they f*ck you up by messing with your hormones and then they give you anti-depressants to make you feel better. Win-win for the pharmaceutical industry!
Black Jack Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Except when you start experiencing side effects years down the road! We are not talking Tylenol here. "The Pill" works by messing with your hormones. Widespread pill use is one of the reasons why American females are so screwed up nowadays (both physically and psychologically). The two main side effects of the Pill are weight gain (physical) and mood swings (psychological). It's no wonder America is filled with overweight BPD women. A recent study showed that 25% of all American women take mental-health drugs. Gee, no wonder! First they f*ck you up by messing with your hormones and then they give you anti-depressants to make you feel better. Win-win for the pharmaceutical industry! I'm glad the government is shutting down this women "health care." If men have to put up with a woman's misandrist hissy fits and pay big globs of child support out of their asses with a jacked up court system catering to lazy "moms" who don't want to work for their own money then the gloves come off. Those pills are a waste of time anyway.
somedude81 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 14 potential weeks of vomiting, nausea, clinical depression, anxiety, physical pain, bad cramping, and a hit to your metabolism that may be permanent don't sound like a reason not to "try" it? Really? If the effects were so common do you think the product would be on the market?
soserious1 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 People are missing the bigger, more alarming picture behind the smoke screen of sensational journalism. If an employer can require a woman to provide proof that she's using birth control to treat medical problems & can decide to terminate the employment that women based on her response, how long do you think it will be before other medications can be treated in the same manner? If a company can "opt out" of paying for contraceptives, how long do you think it will be before they can "opt out" of covering various cancer drugs, drop coverage for medical tests that might diagnosis expensive medical problems. It starts with birth control pills.. where does it end/
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 People are missing the bigger, more alarming picture behind the smoke screen of sensational journalism. If an employer can require a woman to provide proof that she's using birth control to treat medical problems & can decide to terminate the employment that women based on her response, how long do you think it will be before other medications can be treated in the same manner? If a company can "opt out" of paying for contraceptives, how long do you think it will be before they can "opt out" of covering various cancer drugs, drop coverage for medical tests that might diagnosis expensive medical problems. It starts with birth control pills.. where does it end/ If we had a truly free market none of this would be an issue.
xxoo Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 If the effects were so common do you think the product would be on the market? Because it is a cheap way for the gov't to provide bc to women who can not afford it. If a powerless woman is desperate enough, she'll take the free shot regardless of side effects. That is one cynical reason.
dasein Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 It starts with birth control pills.. where does it end/ Much more concerned about the prospective floodgate going the other way towards more "elective" things being covered, it's already illegal for employers to delve into who is using the insurance for what and make decisions based on that. That actually -is- something covered by existing statutes.
dasein Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Opting out of paying. . . I personally have no problem and outlined such a way very carefully. Trying to rip something out of someone else's body? Yes, I have a problem with that. And I never said it WAS a parasite. I used scientific terms to state it behaves as such. Glad to hear on the opting out, but who is suggesting forced carry to term or forced abortions? you feel angry at them. Am not angry at them, they are what they are. What I'm angry about is the politics behind it, the people duped by it, and the near permanent underclass of citizens that results. As long as incentives exist to game the system and keep pouring out babies, that will be the result. Of course, jail for child support is extremely rare, but it should be impossible. Cool, but it is common here, so much so that every county jail in my area has at least tripled in size over the last 20 years. This is partially due to drug crimes, but the civil contempt trick accounts for lots of it too.
somedude81 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Because it is a cheap way for the gov't to provide bc to women who can not afford it. If a powerless woman is desperate enough, she'll take the free shot regardless of side effects. That is one cynical reason. The government passes it out? A few posts ago were talking about how much it costs. I wasn't even aware that the gov't provides BC.
phineas Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 He has plenty of choice in being a father. It's called condoms. seriously? So if a guy decides not to wear a rubber you are going to let him have sex with you anyways & not say anything about it? 1
verhrzn Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 seriously? So if a guy decides not to wear a rubber you are going to let him have sex with you anyways & not say anything about it? If I'm raped, or I'm dependent on him, or he'll beat me, or I'm a naive teenager who has been pressured into sex....
Feelsgoodman Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 If I'm raped, or I'm dependent on him, or he'll beat me, or I'm a naive teenager who has been pressured into sex.... The straw men are out in full force I see...
phineas Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 If I'm raped, or I'm dependent on him, or he'll beat me, or I'm a naive teenager who has been pressured into sex.... And if I use a rubber & the woman uses what's in it to impregnate herself when i'm not looking?
verhrzn Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 You do know what a straw-man argument is don't you? "A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." Your position was that a woman doesn't have to let a man have sex with her. I listed reasons a woman might not have a choice about a man having sex with her. "Calculating abortion rates, older teenagers and young adults have the highest abortion rates." "About 13,000 women each year have abortions because they have become pregnant as a result of rape or incest"-http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html Now let's see all of your stats on how women are totally getting pregnant just to take advantage of the child support system. And if I use a rubber & the woman uses what's in it to impregnate herself when i'm not looking? Yeeeeeah, that must happen ALL the time... sources, please, about just how often this occurs? 3
aj22one Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 And if I use a rubber & the woman uses what's in it to impregnate herself when i'm not looking? That's why you burn those suckers (condoms) after you're done.
phineas Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 "A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." Your position was that a woman doesn't have to let a man have sex with her. I listed reasons a woman might not have a choice about a man having sex with her. Now let's see all of your stats on how women are totally getting pregnant just to take advantage of the child support system. Yeeeeeah, that must happen ALL the time... sources, please, about just how often this occurs? Except, far as I know rapists don't have any rights towards children they sired forcibly so your argument was retarded and doesn't even pertain to a father's rights of abortion. I in turn offer my own retarded argument to show how silly you were acting. But Hey, I can play the biased news source also. Christian Life Resources Rape Pregnancies Are Rare John C. Willke, M.D. Life Issues Connector, April 1999, Reprinted with permission
zengirl Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Glad to hear on the opting out, but who is suggesting forced carry to term or forced abortions? Oh so many people and most of the people in the news who make the "why should I pay for your BC?" type rhetoric. At any rate, that's what women have the 'right' to do. I suppose they also have the right to give the child up for adoption -- including to the father, terminating their maternal rights, and I'm all for fathers having THOSE rights, just not the right to say anything about what happens to the woman's body. Cool, but it is common here, so much so that every county jail in my area has at least tripled in size over the last 20 years. This is partially due to drug crimes, but the civil contempt trick accounts for lots of it too. Well, I'm also against locking people up for drugs, generally, as well. I'm very much into legalization or decriminalization of most drugs -- not because I'm pro-drugs but because, as you say, they go to jail and become real criminals. It's sad.
ScreamingTrees Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Yes, because freeing the market works so awesome for things like regulation, labor standards... I would much rather give my control to a democratic government than the business world. Why? Because at least in a government, I have SOME control... I can campaign and vote for policies and politicians who support my voice. In business, I have NO voice. That's pretty funny, because last time I checked, practically all of the current politicians running for 2012 all have basically the same overall views. That's a hell of a range of choices.. A two-faced baby-kissing sociopath with a thousand dollar smile, an obsessive, incompetent religious fanatic / closet homosexual, and.. I don't even know what Newt Gingrich is. He's just sort of there. Do you really think any of them care about you? They were all bought into power by people with the cash to influence the country to their benefit, not necessarily ours. This ain't no democracy, it's an illusion. The politicians support your voice when they need your vote, and then when elected into office they'll support the voice of the solar power company that donated 100,000$ to their campaign to help them win, even at the expense of tax payers to help resuscitate a dead hooker of a business that should've gone out of business.. I'll tell ya, boy, those politicians sure have some fickle selective hearing ears.. Don't get me wrong.. Governments are a necessary evil, but they should only have the power to do what is absolutely necessary, and should be called out when it does a poor job. If we had a free market, then businesses and services that are demanded will thrive, while impractical business with poor service will go out of business. THAT is the regulation. We have the power to regulate through our own transactions.. We can water the good buds and let them flower and let the weeds die out as quickly as they spring up. There SHOULD be regulations.. On the government's ability to water the weeds that we don't want tainting the garden. EDIT: I also support legalization of all drugs. People will do what they do.. Why turn an otherwise harmless, non-violent person into a criminal for ingesting a plant? No one has ever really died from smoking it, unless it was laced with a hard drug (another valid reason to legalize it and have credible suppliers) or they got a brain tumor from years of smoking, but, c'mon, that's certainly no worse than killing your liver from alcohol abuse. I'm no smoker, but I don't see why it's such a big deal. Little kids can get drunk and act stupid, so who cares if they're getting high? It's probably safer and less physically harmful than drinking would be. You can abuse everything, and also respectfully and maturely enjoy most things in moderation. Edited March 23, 2012 by ScreamingTrees 2
thatone Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 If we had a truly free market none of this would be an issue. We had one, back when slavery preceded the company store 1
Recommended Posts