What I was saying is, it seems pretty ridicules that they would make abortions, and abortion pills seem like a viable solution to an unwanted pregnancy, as opposed to stressing the use of condoms to prevent it, and avoid disease. I have no problem with a woman's right to chose, I do have a problem with people that use it for birth control. I have a bigger problem when they do it at tax payers expense. I think it's pretty fucking sad, and pretty fucking pathetic, when someone is just so stupid, that they can't seem to realize a condom would prevent having their third child, when they're only 18 or 20 years old.
Aha, I understand now. Well, I don't generally disagree with you here. Though I don't know of anybody that does propose the morning-after pill (which as you've probably often heard said of, is not an abortion pill as it stops the fertilization altogether...seems a point of semantics, but I guess important for the 'life at conception' crowd) or abortion as ordinary birth control - any class, campaign, advertisement, etc., I've ever seen always stress condoms. Hell, whenever you look at an information article regarding any of the hormonal birth control options they always stress condoms even if just for STD prevention.
That all said...condoms break. The morning-after pill has saved me on more than once occasion. And no form of birth control is 100% effective (not even abstinence if you factor the virgin birth :1orglaugh ).
As for the tax-payer-funded abortion...here's the thing. I'm pretty sure that you and I and most everybody here...hell, most people everywhere...agree that people
should be responsible with their sexual habits. That unwanted pregnancies should be avoided through the use of birth control, whether the array of hormonal options or condoms or both. Yes, we all agree on that?
Unfortunately, the other point I think we're all in agreement about (and for those that disagree on this...well, you're wrong!) is that not everybody
is responsible. So irresponsible people (and I use this to signify couples, as it takes two to tango!) will get knocked up. An unfortunate fact of life. We can take steps to mitigate this (see:
sex education, and not of the BS 'abstinence-only' variety), but it will always be a fact of life. That means society (see: taxpayers) are now partly responsible for that child, one way or the other - either by subsidizing the abortion, or paying for their welfare for at least a couple of decades. Not to mention factoring in the child's higher risk at becoming a criminal. Of course, there is a third option of letting the child/parents starve out on the streets, but society has by and large decided that's not an acceptable course of action (not to mention we'll likely be paying for that route anyway with the much higher chance of criminality).
So given this picture - and I believe it to be fairly accurate - one option is significantly cheaper than the other. I don't think anybody particularly likes it, but the reality of the situation is that it's there.
I also have no faith, or trust in the FDA. I see way to many drugs that they have pushed through, and now someone is suing the pharmaceutical company, which is part of the problem with outrageous medical costs. It all ties in, one way or another. If this hasn't answered your question, give me more specifics, and I'll try again.
On this you and I are quite in agreement. Especially after reading books like
Fast Food Nation,
Bad Science, or
Generation Rx (among others), I pretty much trust things that are FDA-approved only not to kill me within a week. After that... :dunno:
