Drudge: Pelosi Says Birth Control Will Help Economy

**Celtic Rose** · 01-26-2009, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by enslaved1

And "no" is always free. :D

True, but I'm thinking that isn't very practical between a married couple, at least not long term :p

**Moon** · 01-26-2009, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Celtic Rose

True, but I'm thinking that isn't very practical between a married couple, at least not long term :p

You're not married, are you?

:p

**Celtic Rose** · 01-26-2009, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Moon

You're not married, are you?

:p

Umm, no :o

**Celestron** · 01-26-2009, 08:03 PM

This woman is a blithering idiot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFU_jE9WasM

**Celtic Rose** · 01-26-2009, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by Celestron

This woman is a blithering idiot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFU_jE9WasM

Wow, California pays for contraception? I did not know that.

I can think of several people I went to college with who would have found that very interesting :p

California is in a budget crisis, but I'm pretty sure that it isn't because the government is spending its money of contraception.

**AmPat** · 01-26-2009, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by wilbur

I don't know the context of her comment... but how does one automatically assert that this is false?

We know there are definite links between single parenthood and poverty... without B/C we would certainly have many more single parents... seems reasonable to me.

Fat Welfare Woman At Checkout: Hmmmm! Twinkies or Rubbers? .

Honestly, how expensive is it for the poverty moths to buy their own contraceptives?

**MrsSmith** · 01-26-2009, 11:14 PM

On the other hand, reducing birth numbers will have a bad long-term affect on the country. It only takes 18 years to raise a kid, and many have jobs before their 18th birthday. Once they start working, they spend the rest of their lives helping to support our government, social security and medicare. The vast majority of all children born end up being an overall asset to their country.

**xavierob82** · 01-26-2009, 11:23 PM

Poor people should't have children. Poor people should be practicing safe sex and birth control. Only those who are financially and emotionally secure should bring babies into the world. Once again, liberals are 100% correct.

**MrsSmith** · 01-26-2009, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by xavierob82

Poor people should't have children. Poor people should be practicing safe sex and birth control. Only those who are financially and emotionally secure should bring babies into the world. Once again, liberals are 100% correct.

I had 5 kids, all while I was poor. I went back to college when I only had 3, had the 4th a month before graduation.

The oldest did 2 years in the Army, went to college on the GI bill, earned his Bachelor's this year. The second went back to college while working and raising her first child, now has a Bachelor's, 2 kids, a great job, owns her own house, etc. The rest are still growing up, we'll see how they turn out. Being poor isn't harmful to kids, at least they grow up expecting to work for a living.

**AmPat** · 01-26-2009, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by xavierob82

Poor people should't have children. Poor people should be practicing safe sex and birth control. Only those who are financially and emotionally secure should bring babies into the world. Once again, liberals are 100% correct.

I agree up to the liberal crap. Liberals are not the originators of this concept. Liberals created the environment of "free love, open homosexuality, if it feels good do it, etc." Conservatives, namely Evangelical Christians, (those quaint little backwards people that Liberals despise), popularized this.

Once again, Conservatives are 100% correct.