Why don't economic conservatives support government funded birth control?

[Shoulders of Giants]

In my opinion, that should be the economic conservative position. Children cost significantly more than birth control. A woman who cannot afford birth control, most certainly cannot afford children. Therefore, she will be very likely to go on government assistance to raise the kid. This will cost taxpayers significantly more than simply providing birth control in the first place. Therefore, government funded birth control actually saves taxpayers significant money through less government assistance for children who weren't wanted from their parents. Birth control is probably one of the best cost saving items ever invented. In this case, it may be the difference between taxpayers spending $25 a month or thousands a month.


How can conservatives not see this very simple line of reasoning? I guess I can at least understand how very fundamentalist religious people are against birth control. "All sex is evil, therefore women need to be punished for sex, yada yada yada." There's no reasoning with a person who thinks like that. However, economic conservatives seem to be inline with religious conservatives like Mike Huckabee who don't want "Uncle Sugar Daddy" to provide birth control. However, in this case, "Uncle Sugar Daddy" is actually being very financially conservative, as I explained in the previous paragraph. That is unless economic conservatives just want children, who were born in a bad situation through no fault of their own, to suffer. I guess that position is at least consistent, if not completely evil. However, the current stated position of most economic conservatives simply doesn't make any sense, and costs taxpayers much more money.

[liberal N proud]

1. Religion

The spread religion by propagation, have lots of little Christians.

That is the only thing I ever come up with when I pose that question to myself.

You would think that they would see this as a moneymaker for the rich insurance companies whom are supported by the cons.

[Shoulders of Giants]

2. I certainly understand why religous fundies are against it.

In their view, women deserve what happens because God made it so. I think that's a terrible argument and should have no pull in a secular democracy. However, I was thinking of this from the economic conservative position. I've even seen atheist conservatives, such as Penn Gillette or Adam Carola, make arguments against government funded birth control. Here is Adam Carola arguing against government funded birth control, and he is as anti religious as you can get.

http://theburningtruth.us/2012/09/12/adam-carolla-takes-on-sandra-fluke/

He is making a very stupid and economically unsound argument as I pointed out before. Outside of religion, the argument makes no sense. However, many nonreligious conservatives who are liberal on other social issues simply don't see this line of reasoning, and its simply stupid.

[liberal N proud]

9. get the red out below explains the religious connection very well

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4395162

[get the red out]

3. They need the support of religious fanatics

They also want more future consumers produced.

[Xyzse]

6. There you go.

It is a wedge issue that allows them to create more zealous voters, while screwing them from behind over and over again.

Their voters never think of the greater good after getting their minds stuck on the idea of "Liberals kill babies".

They never look at the root causes of such a thing to begin with, such as the financial security of the mother.

If they support the mother, from medical expenses to much better maternity leave, more individuals would feel secure enough economically to consider having children.
----If they are secure enough not to have to deal with the biological father in many different cases, that might be another factor.
----Pre-natal care is expensive.
----I could go on and on about financial security and support, but what they are doing is trying to limit this.

If they really cared about welfare of babies, they really should consider this, rather than trying to compound a bad situation in to a worse one.

[dembotoz]

4. general hatred of the lower income folks

[Stargazer09]

5. Control

They don't want women having the freedom to control their reproductive organs.

[LeftinOH]

7. Using birth control means people are screwing just for fun, which the fundies

also do...except it's different for them (or something).

[JaneyVee]

8. You would think the "party of personal responsibility" would cheer taking

Personal responsibility.

[SomethingFishy]

10. Because that would mean you could have sex for fun...

And sex is not for fun it's for making babies. Well it is for women, sex is allowed to be fun for men, but not women. That's why "Uncle Sugar Daddy" can pay for fucking Viagra but not birth control.

Republicans are hypocritical control freaks. Period. It has nothing to do with anything but control.