Having sex = being a slut, according to Rush.

**Cat** · 03-03-2012, 03:49 PM

what tools. They obviously have no idea how the pill works.

and how does it even compare to clothes?!

I'd like to hear their reasoning about how Viagra is ok but birth control isn't

**Craig C** · 03-03-2012, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Cat

what tools. They obviously have no idea how the pill works.

and how does it even compare to clothes?!

I'd like to hear their reasoning about how Viagra is ok but birth control isn't

Simple viagra gives all older republican conservatives the chance to have kids so they can grow up to be neoconrepubs. Birth control takes that chance away from them

**Tyr** · 03-03-2012, 07:20 PM

The problem with Rush'es statement, and something I think that some conservatives, and folk that are more religious then I am, is they don't seem to grasp that a unwanted pregnancies aren't just a personal problem. A mother who can't support the child she has birthed ends up putting him or her in the system. Then it becomes OUR problem. And unfortunately once many of these children get put in the system they never leave the system, from childhood to adulthood. The taxpayer ends up having to pay for many these children until the day they die, not only being a burden on society, but also perpetuating many of societies problems, like crime. That is why things like contraception need to be readily available. That and we're running out of everything but people.

Now I understand the concerns about this, that doing, this seems like we're giving a license for sexual irresponsibility. Well here's the thing, people are just going to go right on being sexually irresponsible access to contraception or no, they've been doing it long before many of us where born. They will continue to do it long after all of us have passed on. No amount of preaching from the pulpit has changed that, or will change it. We can't stop people from being irresponsible, but we can stop society from having to foot the bill. And contraception is a small price and cheaper price to pay then another child placed in an over burdened foster care system, who has a good chance of ending up in an over burdened prison system later on down the road.

**Shurato2099** · 03-03-2012, 07:24 PM

Rush has issued an apology, after several of his sponsors (including one sports team) threatened to pull out of his show. Not very heartfelt, naturally.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...medium=twitter

**Stressfactor** · 03-03-2012, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by Tyr

The problem with Rush'es statement, and something I think that some conservatives, and folk that are more religious then I am, is they don't seem to grasp that a unwanted pregnancies aren't just a personal problem. A mother who can't support the child she has birthed ends up putting him or her in the system. Then it becomes OUR problem. And unfortunately once many of these children get put in the system they never leave the system, from childhood to adulthood. The taxpayer ends up having to pay for these children until the day they die. Not only being a burden on society, but also perpetuating many of societies problems, like crime. That is why things like contraception need to be readily available. That and we're running out of everything but people.

Now I understand the concerns about this that doing this seems like we're giving a license for sexual irresponsibility. Well here's the thing, people are just going to go right on being sexually irresponsible access to contraception or no, they've been doing it long before many of us where born. They will continue to do it long after all of us have passed on. No amount of preaching from the pulpit has changed that, or will change it. We can't stop people from being irresponsible, but we can stop society from having to foot the bill. And contraception is a small price and cheaper price to pay then another child placed in an over burdened foster care system, who has a good chance of ending up in an over burdened prison system later on down the road.

I know you don't mean it that way Tyr but watch using the phrase "Burden on Society". That has some SERIOUSLY negative connotations surrounding it as well as having some coded racial overtones.

**Tyr** · 03-03-2012, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Stressfactor

I know you don't mean it that way Tyr but watch using the phrase "Burden on Society". That has some SERIOUSLY negative connotations surrounding it as well as having some coded racial overtones.

Racial undertones? I can see where your going with that Stress, but kids from a multitude of nationalities end up being but into the system. And yes there has been a certain amount of racial preference when it comes to adoption. (I've heard it said that white children are more likely to end up being adopted, then those of minority.) But that's a problem with the system, not with the nationality that put them there.

And yes I realize being a burden on the system does carry with it some negative connotations, but I honestly can't find a softer way of saying that. I know its not the kids fault, he or she didn't have a say in being brought into the world. But someone has to pay for that kids upbringing, because to do otherwise would be inhuman. And raising a child costs lots of money. Furthermore, it's been a long established fact that those who end up in foster care are more likely to end up in some kind of trouble later on in life, more often then not it is of the legal variety, in which the state will continue one way or another to pay for this individual.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of people have managed to be successfully placed for adoption, or even managed to pull themselves out of the foster system. But that doesn't change the fact that the foster system is a practice that although necessary has not produced the most successful results. Now if we had less kids entering the system then we do, then that might ease the burden on said system. I wish we could spare all these kids from a shitty life, who's only crime was being born in the wrong place at the wrong time. But we can't.

**Tyr** · 03-03-2012, 07:47 PM

edit: double post.

**Corrina** · 03-03-2012, 07:53 PM

Tyr, you may not be aware, but the history of birth control, especially the pill, is full of rhetoric about removing "burdens on society" aka the poor which are very close to "purity" arguments. Margaret Sanger did a lot of good in the area of birth control but if you look at some of her statements behind the reasoning, we're starting to get into very scary territory that way. So the history of birth control is fraught with the the worst kind of eugenics statements. Just wiki Margaret Sanger and you'll have a start on it.

And, earlier, you state that "the mother," which I would change to "the parents," at the very least. Unlike what Rush seems to be thinking, it takes two to have sex and create a child and perhaps fail that child.

And it's all mis-statements, since regulating periods have all kinds of other health benefits and costs the same all the time, whether one is having sex or not.

In general, (not directed at Tyr), I cannot believe in this day and age that we're (the American political world) is still having a discussion about whether birth control should be available. I don't care if it's sex or not, even if it's JUST to prevent pregnancy to allow sex. I mean, Jesus tap-dancing Christ, people. Of course, this is all really about blaming women for sex. Maybe Rush & Rick Santorum should join up with the Taliban and while we're all forced to undergo invasive medical procedures like vaginal ultrasounds so we know the seriousness of a pregnancy (like we didn't know before!), we can cover our bodies with burkas so the menz won't be all tempted to have sex.

This whole political discussion strikes me not only as insane but deeply weird and profoundly fucked up on the part of the Republicans, the guys who claim to want the government out of our private lives.

**Tyr** · 03-03-2012, 08:51 PM

Your right, Corri, I should have said parents instead of mother. Although sometimes the father doesn't even enter the picture, apart from fertilizing the egg, which is even worse because it leaves the mother with the all the tough decisions. But your right, honestly I can't really find a better way to phrase my argument, although I'm sure others can. Call it a mental failing on my part. And I apologize if my words caused offensive to anyone on this board. That was not my intent in the slightest.

**Chris Jones** · 03-03-2012, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Stressfactor

I know you don't mean it that way Tyr but watch using the phrase "Burden on Society". That has some SERIOUSLY negative connotations surrounding it as well as having some coded racial overtones.

Like white people can't be burdens on society? My father, for example. Basically spent the last few years of his life cheating the Welfare system and getting high on pills. If that's not being a burden on society I don't know what is.