Um, nice try. Birth control is dirt cheap. Unless you're the poorest of the dirt poor, it's very affordable. The state also isn't denying or making access to birth control difficult either, that's just bullshit. Put it this way, if you can afford one Timmies coffee a day you can afford birth control. If you can't afford both then it's YOU that needs to rearrange your f*cking priorities (no pun intended), not society.
Oh, so you're just talking Canada and not the US. Okay then yes, I actually agree with that. And choice of BC - whether IUD or pills or shots - it's expensive (relatively so) but as you said, priorities. If you're gonna 'do the deed', be protected. I've never had to take it, nor do I have an IUD so it's all not something I've got experience with. That said, the cost of women v men on the birth control/contraceptive stuff is just insane (and likely another topic?)
Totally different though in the US.
Anyway...
And to use a VERY popular non-sequitur of the ALT-left, it's 2019. Birth control isn't exactly a new concept.
Nope. Totally agree with that, too. Totally pisses me off when women can't take a ****in' pill or bother to move their behind's to get other forms of protection.
You are also confusing two different arguments, one of which I'm not trying to make. Read what I'm saying very carefully. You can't force people to hold a financial interest in your behaviour while at the same time telling them it's none of their business.
Hence why I asked what you meant by that statement. WHERE are people being held in financial interest about someones behavior vs. saying it's not their business?
Well....apparently in ALT-left la-la-land you can. Ironically, the fact the public is expected to pay for oopsies means they are entitled to their opinion on publicly funded abortions. Rape and incest notwithstanding of course.
Ah, yeah, Medicare covers abortion, so is that what you mean? You think the fact you pay into Medicare which covers everyone, gives you the right to also dictate who can and can't get an abortion for whatever reason?
Just clarifying.
Also, abortions for 'oopsies' all depends on what you mean, IMO. A first time 'oopsie' can happen unexpectedly. But if the woman is about to have her third abortion, then IMO it's chronic and woman needs an IUD or a shot or something. FYI, since Birth Control pills don't always work, making IUD's and shots cheaper - which now they are not and are not covered by Medicare (so abortion is cheaper than the IUD/shots) - might help keep more abortions from happening.
While pro-choice, I also feel that abortions are NOT an 'option of Birth Control'.
In fact, I find this in conjunction with the whole feminist movement to be rather hilarious. Women (at least some of them) want to be empowered and yet refuse to acknowledge that when it comes to consensual sex, the woman is in charge.
Hmn... I can see your point in this. But as you said, it's only 'some of them'. And it's only in some situations that a woman is in charge. The fact a woman may say no and it's STILL not taken seriously is still a thing. So women still aren't really in charge most of the time despite the 'empowerment' of trying to be.
She decides when or if it's going to happen.
So does the guy, and guys still love to put pressure on women to have sex until they give or it turns into an issue.
But instead we get, "Oooo we wanna be empowered but we don't wanna be bogged down by inconvenient concepts like personal responsibility." Gimmie a friggin' break.
That's an overly simplistic way to think of the entire situation, I think. Those 'inconvenient concepts' are just that, depending on what level you're talking about.
And what about the man's responsibility?
Where's the condom he should have on him?
The spermicide?
Or why can't HE just say "no" if there's no protection present?
What about the push for a shot or preventative for men? It's out there but it's still mostly in trial phases. It's only recently that male contraceptives have become a thing.
Why should the onus be all on the woman (because women were the only one with the prevention)?
Granted, if a woman is NOT on pills, the shot, or has an IUD, or she ****s up taking the pills, or whatever other reason she isn't sure it's safe to have sex then no, she shouldn't have sex if she doesn't want the chance of a baby. I'm not absolving a woman of the responsibility.
I also think accidents happen.
But in the end, as I said you can have your different opinion but when you try to force that opinion on others that's when you cross the line.
Abortion is not your business unless directly involved. You hate your money being used to cover 'oopsie' stuff, and so do I. In the end, it's not my choice. I would prefer that someone who, as mentioned, has a chronic 'oopsie' issue have something seriously considered since they can't contain themselves, but that also infringes on someone's rights.
It's just something we'll have to get over. I'd rather the instances of chronic abuse, still, vs someone who cannot get an abortion at all and the repercussions that come of THAT circumstance.
