hahaha.....ahhhh, you remind me of my sister, who, after I prove a point I was trying to make in an argument, will say, "So what?" as if she hasn't been trying to prove me wrong for the last 3 minutes.</p>
<p>What about it, you ask? Well, you're moving past the item of "who deserves birth control/should it be affordable, et." to the next chronological point where birth control will no longer help b/c the woman is pregnant but doesn't want to be, and abortion is a highly debatable way of dealing with it.</p>
<p>And who cares if they resort to it? I don't see the issue here, sorry. We're talking about the self-induced problems of two adults who have nothing to do with us.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But who cares a couple ends up with an unwanted pregnancy? It's their problem, let them deal with it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That pregnancy would affect a wide circle of people. It's not just "their" issue to deal with--this thread is focused on students. The individuals who can no longer afford birth control are your/our classmates, coworkers, neighbors. What happens if an unintended pregnancy suddenly means that part of your final group project isn't submitted? Or that your coworker has to quit school, leaving the other students to fill in the extra shifts? What if this is your roommate, who then moves out ... or doesn't move out?</p>
<p>Even if the couple accepts the risks of sex (protected or otherwise), a pregnancy would affect many, many people. Not just the couple. Personally, I think it's to everyone's advantage to provide affordable, effective birth control to those students who wish to be sexually active but not reproductive. This isn't, as another poster suggested, like buying insurance and then driving drunk. This is like choosing to drive and wearing your seat belt: even though the seat belt won't always save your life in an accident, it certainly does more good than harm.</p>
<p>"But who cares a couple ends up with an unwanted pregnancy? It's their problem, let them deal with it."</p>
<p>I care, if only because of all the extra money that we (as taxpayers) would end up contributing to the cost of raising that unwanted child. If they can't afford birth control, they're probably not going to be able to adequately support a child's needs. Which is where government assistance comes in. Not that I don't think these programs should exist (I do), but I think the cheaper alternative is to provide birth control at affordable prices. You all seem to be so against your tax dollars (though I think the case in point refers to pharmaceutical companies' increased prices more so than tax dollars subsidizing pills, but nevertheless) contributing to more affordable contraceptives, so I wonder why none of you care that your tax dollars would support the increased (likely) number of pregnancies that would result from contraceptives not being affordable. You say "let them deal with it", but they probably won't be the ones "dealing with it" in a monetary sense, at least not alone. In all likelihood, we'll be the one's "dealing with it". Care now?</p>
<p>And for what it's worth, I don't know of a single teen mother that was using contraceptives when she became pregnant. Every single teen pregnancy I know of resulted from not using any contraceptives - the failure rate by couples practicing safe sex is quite low.</p>
<p>"What happens if an unintended pregnancy suddenly means that part of your final group project isn't submitted? Or that your coworker has to quit school, leaving the other students to fill in the extra shifts? What if this is your roommate, who then moves out ... or doesn't move out?"</p>
<p>Because a 9 month incubation period isn't sufficient? Let's assume part isn't submitted, any reasonable professor would consider the extraordinary circumstances. Either work the extra shifts, have the manager hire someone new, or quit the job. So what if it is my roommate? </p>
<p>"Even if the couple accepts the risks of sex (protected or otherwise), a pregnancy would affect many, many people. Not just the couple."</p>
<p>Only if other people let it affect them.</p>
<p>"Personally, I think it's to everyone's advantage to provide affordable, effective birth control to those students who wish to be sexually active but not reproductive. This isn't, as another poster suggested, like buying insurance and then driving drunk. This is like choosing to drive and wearing your seat belt: even though the seat belt won't always save your life in an accident, it certainly does more good than harm."</p>
<p>Perhaps, but I find sympathizing with this position incredibly difficult.</p>
<p>"I care, if only because of all the extra money that we (as taxpayers) would end up contributing to the cost of raising that unwanted child. If they can't afford birth control, they're probably not going to be able to adequately support a child's needs. Which is where government assistance comes in. Not that I don't think these programs should exist (I do), but I think the cheaper alternative is to provide birth control at affordable prices. You all seem to be so against your tax dollars (though I think the case in point refers to pharmaceutical companies' increased prices more so than tax dollars subsidizing pills, but nevertheless) contributing to more affordable contraceptives, so I wonder why none of you care that your tax dollars would support the increased (likely) number of pregnancies that would result from contraceptives not being affordable. You say "let them deal with it", but they probably won't be the ones "dealing with it" in a monetary sense, at least not alone. In all likelihood, we'll be the one's "dealing with it". Care now?"</p>
<p>Negatory. These government programs/subsidies shouldn't exist in the first place. I don't want my tax dollars being spent on someone elses self inflicted problems. </p>
<p>"And for what it's worth, I don't know of a single teen mother that was using contraceptives when she became pregnant. Every single teen pregnancy I know of resulted from not using any contraceptives - the failure rate by couples practicing safe sex is quite low."</p>
<p>Being pregnant is a 9 month process. I doubt that you couldn't get any or all issues solved before the person started showing. People get pregnant all the time, and it hardly ever has a huge impact on the people unrelated to them. They are simply replaced. It happens all the time.</p>
<p>The point is is that it doesn't effect YOU. So why should you care. Yeah you could make the point that our tax dollars go towards taking care of their children, but what doesn't take some of our tax dollars nowadays.</p>
<p>Sex is for having babies and nothing else. People have it so much purely for the fun of it. And just like a football player knows he can get injured at anytime, someone having sex knows there is always a chance of pregnancy. If you can't or won't pay the costs to prevent the chances of playing the game then don't play it. You don't like the rules don't play the game. You got to give up something. In this case money is the cost.</p>
<p>But again why should your really care if a lady is a baby factory or not. Its her choice. These people know what they're doing. Just as firewalker said where does personal responsibility come into play?</p>
<p>kenshinsan, your remarks on finding unplanned pregnancies funny reveal a deep callousness. as modern bc greatly reduces the risk of pregnancy, and in truth women can only get pregnant a few days of the month AND if it's a viable egg, or the egg is implante d (which doesn't happen 2/3 times i believe) it is a sad combination of unfortunate circumstances that lead to unwanted children/abortions/ruined lives. it's really not funny at all. obviously sex CAN lead to pregnancy, but with bc it most often doesn't. sex has other purposes besides procreation and "fun" it can also be an intimate experience that enhances a relationship. and it is a biological drive as well that is more or less inevitable. as many have pointed out, even if other's pregnancy does not directly affect you, it most certainly poses a problem for society at large unless abortion (as many have said, a can of worms in and of itself), prompt adoption right after birth by a non abusive family, or abandoning the child as in ancient rome takes place.</p>
<p>Negatory. These government program/subsidies shouldn't exist in the first place. I don't want my tax dollars being spent on someone elses self inflicted problems.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I believe the case in point actually refers to a government law which, after passed, no longer required pharmaceutical companies' to give discounted rates to colleges. The pharmaceutical companies may have had lower profits from these sales (though I bet the did a lot more business then they did otherwise by providing them to colleges and universities in the first place), but I don't believe there were subsidies involved (though I personally would agree with such subsidies if they did exist).</p></li>
<li><p>Government programs to support teen mothers exist whether you think they should or not. Some of the programs which currently support teen mothers are: Medicaid, AFDC, WIC, Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant, Adolescent Family Life (AFL) Program, and the Food Stamp Program. Whether or not you like them doesn't really have any bearing - the programs exist, and your taxes are funding them. In that sense, it isn't just "their" problem - we all have to deal with it. And it's far more costly to support the child resultant from an unwanted pregnancy than to try to prevent that pregnancy in the first place (the costs of such programs to support teen pregnancies are about $40 billion a year - mind you this is the money being allocated to support teen mothers alone, the costs of the programs themselves as applied to all demographics are much higher).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>"And whos fault was that, exactly?"</p>
<p>I believe it was their "fault" for the vast majority (those who I don't believe to be at "fault" are for particularly personal reasons which I will not disclose on the internet). It was meant more as an illustrative example - I really, genuinely, do not know of anyone who has become pregnant while using contraceptives (as they should be used).</p>
<p>Of course they exist, but they shouldn't. Better to spend my energy getting rid of such programs instead of spending energy to reduce birth control costs. Ideally, these people would have to fend for themselves, and ultimately be dependent upon the charity of others, not unwilling taxpayers.</p>
<p>I guess the point was that so long as they exist, you can't really claim it's "their problem" alone. I really hope that everyone in your life remains fortunate enough not to require government assistance. Or that you're able to support them yourself if there comes a time when they need aid and your efforts have paid off :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Being pregnant is a 9 month process. I doubt that you couldn't get any or all issues solved before the person started showing. People get pregnant all the time, and it hardly ever has a huge impact on the people unrelated to them. They are simply replaced. It happens all the time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that this highlights a fundamental point of our disagreement: I don't see pregnancy as an isolated incident that can be resolved systematically and with no inconvenience to other people. It's hard to say when a pregnancy will suddenly become difficult, if/when the woman will swell so far beyond her normal size that she can barely walk--never mind complications. Accordingly, there's no good way to predict when she will necessarily have to stop her other work. Humans are not machinated incubators that can mechanically continue their work throughout the entirety of gestation. In many cases, something will have to give.</p>
<p>I do care about what happens to my classmates, even if their difficulties are created by their own choices. Maybe I've known more parent-students than you, or maybe we just have fundamentally different ways of interacting with other people. I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right, just that there are other ways of thinking about the issue. That's all I wanted to highlight with my earlier post.</p>
<p>Wow, even after your touching post passionflower8 I can't say that I really care. The abortion and/or abandonment of the child is none of my business and doesn't have enough of an impact on me that I think I will ever be brought to truly care. Sex leads to babies. Simple as that. Of course it has tons of other benefits but at its simplest form sex leads to babies. You know the risks when you have sex so shut up and deal with it when you have one. If you can't afford to prevent pregnancy anymore too bad. Get a second job.</p>
<p>And firewalker is right you gotta pull the programs. I lived in the ghetto for a lot of my life and there is no alternative other than to pull the aid. You will never truly understand how the programs are ingrained into peoples lives and how they will NEVER get off of them. All the programs to prevent this and help with this DON'T HELP. If you ever lived in the ghetto you would truly understand. I have my views because I have seen the worst of the worst and I realize that things do not change unless you make them. All of the programs out there are just bandaids to gunshot wounds. </p>
<p>In order to truly do something you just got to pull them and let it bleed and you can call me mean/evil but natural selection will take care of the rest.</p>