--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > Why should the government pay for contraception? Rush may be a > > > disgusting scumbag but why is this Fluke woman whining about > > > the fact that contraception would cost her $3,000 over a > > > certain period of time while she is a law student? No one is > > > forcing her to have sex. Why can't she or her boyfriend(s) pay > > > for contraception themselves if they wish to fornicate? > > > > What if she and her boyfriend get married? Would it be OK > > then for the government to pay for their contraception? > > What's marriage got to do with it? If having sex involves an > outlay of money, the people indulging in it should pay for it.
Well, that's what I was asking, does the woman's being single have anything to do with it? You say no. So you're saying there should be no government coverage of contraception for married people either, because nobody is forcing them to have sex. If they don't want to have a child and can't afford to pay for contraception themselves, they should just remain celibate. Right? Poor people who can't afford contraception, married or single, don't get to have sex. (Just for the record, so we don't get confused, the issue isn't the government paying for contraception; it's the government paying a subsidy for a private health insurance plan that covers contraception.)
