jerk

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The hole in this argument is that once a child is born, regardless of whether either or both or neither of the parents wanted it, the child exists as a separate individual (one capable of surviving without being connected by a placenta to the woman). It's a totally different matter.

If a man doesn't want to run the risk of being financially responsible for a child, he can elect to keep his legs crossed, or to employ birth control in a consistent and responsible way. You know, like Obamacare is trying to make possible for women to do.

i wonder why people think that because health insurers provide prescription birth control that 'everyone pays for it'? do they realize that it's only the basic, cheap, generic pill that's free, while any name brand or higher price isn't free?
do people up in arms about the inclusion of basic birth control rail at any of the myriad other things they 'pay for' since health insurance, like other insurance, is a pool of people all paying so that when some have something occur, the money is there to pay for it? do they rail about paying for the expense of delivering a child? after all, the woman didn't keep her 'legs crossed', and why should anyone else have to pay for her having had sex?
what next, do we demand we don't pay for other peoples' carelessness who have gotten high blood pressure, or diabetes due to their unhealthy eating habits? do we demand not to pay for lung cancer or emphysema treatments for smokers?
my suggestion to anyone not wanting to pay for these things is that they self insure. let me know how that works out for you.