i am writing a paper about how the issue with birth control is being interferred with by the bush administration- i feel that he is trying to put restrictions on birth control with reasons backed by religion which is against the constutution's "separation of church an state". E.g. he just appointed eric keroack,who is very much against birth control as the head of funding for family planning clinics. He will only fund sex education that meet certain criterias.
I am wondering how people feel about this situation- for or against
2006-12-08 08:15:04 · 6 answers · asked by mandy 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Whoa, I'm totally against anyone (especially a man) who wants to say that birth control should be restricted!! A woman has a right to choose whether she gets pregnant or not. I hate how people are trying to smear the barriers between church and state. It is a human right to be intimate with someone and to be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. We don't have the technology to prevent it just so we can throw the technology away or ignore it. If they try restricting it, it will only cause women to resort to other, probably more crude and unsafe, ways to prevent pregnancy. All around, it's not a good idea. And I can guarantee you, women will not stand for being controlled that way.
2006-12-08 08:33:31 · answer #1 · answered by funnygrrl19 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
im against his bc policies, because with all of the youth today having sex at early ages, if he places laws against bc, there will be more teen pregnancies, at younger ages no less. the law wont stop the kids from having sex, because not even a law of consent stops minors from having sex.
i feel that this is just an implication of his own moral beliefs (which may stem from his connection to the chruch, but i wont place blame on them) without legitimate reasoning.
2006-12-08 16:25:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not funding clinics with tax money is not being against birth control. We'd be a lot better off is more things were not funded with our tax money.
2006-12-08 16:29:21 · answer #3 · answered by Yak Rider 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Prevention is far less expensive than treating the symptoms.
(I.e. it's cheaper to give someone bc and prevent a pregnancy than for us to support that child on welfare, provide it an education, etc., just to have to support it again in jail for life.)
2006-12-08 16:19:22 · answer #4 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
I am a Liberal Democrat, and this issue is not my issue. I don't care, in other words. Abortion concerns me more. How people are treated concerns me more. The war concerns me more.
2006-12-08 16:21:58 · answer #5 · answered by martino 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Keep it in your freakin pants and you wont have worry about it.
2006-12-08 16:18:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋