Contraceptives: Universal Human Right?

[Phatscotty]

What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.

The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.

[MeDeFe]

What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.

The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.

ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.

[Phatscotty]

What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.

The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.

ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.

Let me try to say it a different way, just for you. For people who think providing free condoms is a good idea, Phatscotty supports them using their own time and money to provide free condoms.

[Lootifer]

What if the majority want to do so and thus elects a governmental policy to do it?

[Symmetry]

One has to wonder how much time Phatscotty has been forced to spend giving out free condoms. How many of his hours spent on the ground? The seed of dissent wasted on barren earth. I, for one, am annoyed, and positively perturbed that Scotty has had to spend his time on contraception.

I personally support some kind of wristband, or non-removable tracking ankle bracelet, that says- "Hey babe- I ain't using a condom- that's your time and money." for the Scotty's of this world.

[Phatscotty]

What if the majority want to do so and thus elects a governmental policy to do it?

If the majority wanted to do so, then why wouldn't you assume that the majority are already doing so?

[Symmetry]

You seem to be fishing for an argument PS.

[MeDeFe]

What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.

The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.

ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.

Let me try to say it a different way, just for you. For people who think providing free condoms is a good idea, Phatscotty supports them using their own time and money to provide free condoms.

Oh, so you want to be a freeloader and moocher then? Reaping the benefits without making an investment?

Or perhaps you didn't immediately spot the logic behind the argument. Let me spell it out for you.


Premises
STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies cause costs for the nation and ultimately the taxpayers who have to make up for those costs.
Condoms reduce the rate of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
The cost of providing condoms paid for by taxpayers' money is more than offset by the savings from lower rates of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.

Conclusion
The nation can save money by handing out condoms at no charge.



When you say that "it sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things" but then go on to say that "the taxpayer should have nothing to do with it" (which I interpret to mean that the handing out of condoms should not be paid for through the state (and, therefore, taxes)) you are proposing that a state-run program that would lead to savings for the state not be implemented. Not implementing a program that leads to overall lowered costs is tantamount to wasting money.

[Phatscotty]

What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.

The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.

ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.

Let me try to say it a different way, just for you. For people who think providing free condoms is a good idea, Phatscotty supports them using their own time and money to provide free condoms.

Oh, so you want to be a freeloader and moocher then? Reaping the benefits without making an investment?

Or perhaps you didn't immediately spot the logic behind the argument. Let me spell it out for you.


Premises
STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies cause costs for the nation and ultimately the taxpayers who have to make up for those costs.
Condoms reduce the rate of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
The cost of providing condoms paid for by taxpayers' money is more than offset by the savings from lower rates of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.

Conclusion
The nation can save money by handing out condoms at no charge.



When you say that "it sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things" but then go on to say that "the taxpayer should have nothing to do with it" (which I interpret to mean that the handing out of condoms should not be paid for through the state (and, therefore, taxes)) you are proposing that a state-run program that would lead to savings for the state not be implemented. Not implementing a program that leads to overall lowered costs is tantamount to wasting money.

Are you trolling me??????

Of course I spot the logic. It's the exact same giant government central planning logic I rejected in the first place....

But let me repeat yet again, I don't think any of the things you mentioned should be forced onto the taxpayer.

[Symmetry]

What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.

The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.

ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.

Let me try to say it a different way, just for you. For people who think providing free condoms is a good idea, Phatscotty supports them using their own time and money to provide free condoms.

Oh, so you want to be a freeloader and moocher then? Reaping the benefits without making an investment?

Or perhaps you didn't immediately spot the logic behind the argument. Let me spell it out for you.


Premises
STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies cause costs for the nation and ultimately the taxpayers who have to make up for those costs.
Condoms reduce the rate of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
The cost of providing condoms paid for by taxpayers' money is more than offset by the savings from lower rates of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.

Conclusion
The nation can save money by handing out condoms at no charge.



When you say that "it sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things" but then go on to say that "the taxpayer should have nothing to do with it" (which I interpret to mean that the handing out of condoms should not be paid for through the state (and, therefore, taxes)) you are proposing that a state-run program that would lead to savings for the state not be implemented. Not implementing a program that leads to overall lowered costs is tantamount to wasting money.

Are you trolling me??????

Of course I spot the logic. It's the exact same giant government central planning logic I rejected in the first place....

You seem to be trolling for an argument PS.

[Phatscotty]

Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.

The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.

ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.

Let me try to say it a different way, just for you. For people who think providing free condoms is a good idea, Phatscotty supports them using their own time and money to provide free condoms.

Oh, so you want to be a freeloader and moocher then? Reaping the benefits without making an investment?

Or perhaps you didn't immediately spot the logic behind the argument. Let me spell it out for you.


Premises
STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies cause costs for the nation and ultimately the taxpayers who have to make up for those costs.
Condoms reduce the rate of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
The cost of providing condoms paid for by taxpayers' money is more than offset by the savings from lower rates of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.

Conclusion
The nation can save money by handing out condoms at no charge.



When you say that "it sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things" but then go on to say that "the taxpayer should have nothing to do with it" (which I interpret to mean that the handing out of condoms should not be paid for through the state (and, therefore, taxes)) you are proposing that a state-run program that would lead to savings for the state not be implemented. Not implementing a program that leads to overall lowered costs is tantamount to wasting money.

Are you trolling me??????

Of course I spot the logic. It's the exact same giant government central planning logic I rejected in the first place....

You seem to be trolling for an argument PS.

What planet are you living on?

ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.

Oh, so you want to be a freeloader and moocher then?

Obviously, I am all about saving taxpayer money, reducing taxes, and against big government central planning and I am pro-Liberty and pro-Freedom. I am also obviously not a freeloader or a moocher.

Obvious troll is obvious

[Phatscotty]

What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.

The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.

ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.

Let me try to say it a different way, just for you. For people who think providing free condoms is a good idea, Phatscotty supports them using their own time and money to provide free condoms.

Oh, so you want to be a freeloader and moocher then? Reaping the benefits without making an investment?

Or perhaps you didn't immediately spot the logic behind the argument. Let me spell it out for you.


Premises
STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies cause costs for the nation and ultimately the taxpayers who have to make up for those costs.
Condoms reduce the rate of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
The cost of providing condoms paid for by taxpayers' money is more than offset by the savings from lower rates of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.

Conclusion
The nation can save money by handing out condoms at no charge.



When you say that "it sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things" but then go on to say that "the taxpayer should have nothing to do with it" (which I interpret to mean that the handing out of condoms should not be paid for through the state (and, therefore, taxes)) you are proposing that a state-run program that would lead to savings for the state not be implemented. Not implementing a program that leads to overall lowered costs is tantamount to wasting money.

it is a good idea, when it's voluntary. It's a bad idea when it's forced. I believe in freedom, and I think it's immoral and a crime and completely unfair to chain other peoples problems and accidents to the legs of the people who try harder to avoid accidents and make it a point to be safe and responsible.

I understand what you are saying. Basically, you are saying "well, the state already is responsible for covering all these accidents and and problems, therefore, we should expand the state further/redistribute more/take money from other people to save the state money" You can go ahead and keep arguing that's its my responsibility to take care of everyone else and everyone elses problems are my problems, and I am going to keep arguing for Freedom and Liberty, and for the person who makes the mistake to deal with the consequences of their mistakes and accidents, and against forcing someone else to pick up the tab, or forcing someone else to pay for preventative programs through a government that is highly incompetent and wastes tons of money.

Private citizens, associations, groups, fraternities, clubs, churches can do it far more efficiently and far more responsibly than the government can, and it can be done without violating our most cherished principles and values.

Bottom line, everything you say is fine and dandy when it's based on voluntary actions and respects our principles of Freedom and Liberty. You don't have a right to anyone elses property, and it doesn't matter how much your heart bleeds over any particular issue. All you should need to know about me concerning this issue is that I believe in small government and believe in Freedom.

put another way...

"The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds."

[MeDeFe]

If condoms are handed out for free, thereby reducing the rate of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies, the entire nation and everyone in it profits.
Anyone who wants to profit from that without chipping in towards the initial investment (i.e. buying condoms) is a moocher. I think they can be called a "moocher" even in a Randian sense.


Anyway, Phatscotty, did you not support testing welfare recipients for drugs and said that one reason for doing so was to lower costs for the state? How was that any different from lowering costs by providing condoms? In fact, providing condoms for every citizen is far less intrusive and requires less bureaucracy than testing even a relatively small portion of the population for traces of drugs.


Finally, improved health and family planning leads to improved productivity, which means a stronger economy, which means more money for the state even without raising taxes. The argument for a state-run program handing out condoms comes down to more than just, and I quote you, "well, the state already is responsible for covering all these accidents and and problems, therefore, we should expand the state further/redistribute more/take money from other people to save the state money".

[Lootifer]

Where contraception is treated as a universial human right there tends to be decreased levels of teenage preganacy. Though the data is hard to find. I dont want to google it at work.

Saxi?

[Army of GOD]

Alcohol and pot should be universal rights too. Why isn't the government giving them out?