Blogger is wrong about gender roles

Like I said, you'll pay for it one way or another even if the government goes away like you want. No health care coverage means more sick people who go to emergency rooms for care, racking up huge bills that result in higher medical costs for everyone else. No safety net for children of single mothers means more kids in the foster care system or juvenile justice system or eventually in prison, which society will pay more for than if it had funded early childhood programs or required insurance to pay for birth control for the mother. People who don't deserve help have children who do and kids who are raised in chaotic households and in poverty grow up to commit more crime, which you or your family may fall victim to. So, to answer your question, as long as you are a member of society, you will ALWAYS pay for it somehow. I pay taxes too and I wish more of them went to fund those policies.

I also think you cannot legislate morality, which this seems to be an attempt to do. I prefer laws that address the problems in the world as it is, not as I might wish it to be.

They already do fine and jail fathers who don't pay child support or who have fathered kids with younger girls. As far as I can see, all that does is ensure that the father isn't around for the kids and isn't able to work to pay child support. Doesn't do much good. Child support also tends to be high enough that some guys can't pay it and still support themselves adequately. I'm not sure what the solution is, but better use of birth control would probably prevent some of those unplanned pregnancies.

You and I have a fundamental difference in the way we look at these issues. I believe government has a responsibility provide social welfare programs for the good of society; you apparently don't. Well-funded social programs are a good investment because they prevent worse problems further down the road. One way or the other, we're going to pay for the ills caused when people don't get adequate health care or can't afford to take care of their children on their own.

One way or another we are going to pay for the results of somebody's sexual conduct. Poor single mothers end up requiring government assistance to raise their children, which the government does indeed pay for. If we don't pay for that assistance, we end up with higher child abuse and higher crime rates and fewer kids who are educated enough to get good jobs and pay taxes. Paying for birth control, health care, etc. will save all of us more money in the long run.

Fluke may have exaggerated the actual cost of birth control for a law school student, but they are an extra expense for young women who might not be making a lot of money. Realistically, whether you think it is morally right or not, most unmarried and married young men and women are sexually active; most would like to avoid an unexpected pregnancy if they are responsible.

If we're looking at it realistically, paying for birth control is less expensive than paying to raise a child. if the mother is poor, single and stressed, an unwanted child is likely to cost society more in terms of subsidized day care and medical care and Head Start and, possibly down the road, in the juvenile justice and foster care system. I'd far rather see birth control better used than see women getting an abortion, too.

Compound interest wasn't enough to make up for it. As we can see now, the fund is going bankrupt because you drained it.

Do you really want to defend your 76% of stolen income?

The Blunt amendment has been defeated. I think that is for the best since it would have given insurance companies too much latitude to deny coverage just by citing conscience.

Olddoggiepoo.This is not just about birth control.This is about any procedure that they feel is not necessary,You know like heart,brain, cancer,So get off the pot and read the Blunt admenment.

The reputents(scott brown) is trying to pass a bill called the blunt admenment.lOOK IT UP. I guess they will not get many women votes. But they can always count on the one percent.

Old Dog: You may have paid into Social Security for all those years, but you also spent your share years ago. Now you have the gall to come after mine? Yeah, you're a "taker", not a "giver".

I dont want to get off the suject but can anyone on this blog tell me when the last time a hospital went bankrupt? Thought so.

The fundamental rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if we take the Declaration of Independence at its word. You can tuck a lot of things under those three concepts. Without health care, for example, you don't have much chance at a long life or pursuit of happiness. And then there are the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc. etc. etc., and the right to privacy, which Roe v. Wade would seem to grant us and any additional rights that your religion or philosophy would say we are entitled to.

I believe a just society has a responsibility and it is wise to care for the weak and the poor and the needy.

Uh oh, here we go again with the "givers" and the "takers" schtick. It's too bad the Old Dog won't share with us all the different ways that he's a "taker", all the while coming into these forums and insisting that he's such a hard-working "giver".

And his analysis about "rights" doesn't do the word justice at all. But at the same time, Andrea, I'm not sure you truly understand what rights are about, either.

Call it a fundamental difference in philosophy, Old Dog. There are always going to be people who are not able to pay their bills, often due to circumstance, through no fault of their own. I believe that a just society provides a safety net, both because it is the right thing to do and out of enlightened self interest. We end up paying for the results when a kid isn't taken care of and a sick person doesn't get treated one way or the other and it's usually more expensive when they don't get cared for in the early stages.

Sure, but my first comment was in response to something I cannot even remember. I think it was from you main column.

Anyway, I went back and reread the quotation you took from the blogger's website. I guess I'm just not seeing what's so bad about it. Then again, perhaps you could have explored his expressed notion that masculinity would necessarily conquer the world or necessarily seeks out such ends. THere are more ways to compete than in amassing empires.

And these days thee are plenty of men who are also primary caregivers for small children. Parenting is something both men and women do and both should be able to get family leave to do so.

Well, women ARE the only ones capable of carrying babies to term...

I'll not delve into health care or the other issues brought up because I don't think they're relevant to this thread, thought I have opinions on them.

Compared with other countries in the western world (Scandinavian countries, France, even Britain) the United States offers very, very little in the way of paid family leave, child care assistance or social programs that help people care for their families. Our method of funding health care leaves families bankrupt if they are unlucky to get hit with a major medical crisis. I don't think think that is a state of affairs that is healthy for either individuals or for society as a whole, which must deal with the after effects of families that don't have the time or the money to care for children and sick and elderly family members when they need it. So, yeah, I think one role of government is to make law that makes those things easier and encourages businesses to make those things easier. That is my definition of mature adulthood.