# Wisconsin Senators trying Stop Birth Control for Poor Women **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 1, 2006, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601 "2006-03-01T12:54:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/61 "2006-03-01T22:36:01Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Why have a fire department? If your house is on fire, why should I have to pay to put it out? If you want to put out your house fire, pay for it yourself. There was a thread on this very subject not too long ago (which I can’t seem to find) - some places in the US do indeed expect and need locals to pay for their services via donations. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/62 "2006-03-01T22:38:42Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Wouldn’t this be a grossly hypocritical position for anyone who claims to be pro-life? Isn’t it wildly inconsistent for any group to claim it cares about babies as long as they’re inside a womans’s body but then to wash its hands of all responsibility for them after they’re born? How can any pro-lifer logically justify this kind of legislation? No. I don’t favor randomly killing people in the street, but that doesn’ mean I favor supporting those people if they choose not to work. Why can’t a Christian, who believes that the soul is present at conception, think it is murder to kill a fetus, but still believe that charity should be voluntary? It’s one thing to say “thou shalt not kill”. It’s another to say “thou shalt tax they neighbor to support the poor”. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/63 "2006-03-01T22:38:44Z")
> [@niblet\_head](#): > > **Bricker’s** not talking about pro-lifers here. He’s talking about libertarians. Some libertarians. Not all. > > Kinda like how I was talking about some right-wingers, and not all. And how I was talking about restricting access to contraception, and not abortion. > > Can we please get a clear line of demarcation between what was pitted in the OP and all the possible permutations of libertarian social policies? In that case, I would like **Bricker** to offer up any reason at all for _pro-lifers_ to support this legislation besides a desire to exercise control over the sexual autonomy of teenaged girls. I agree that the whole Libertarian angle seems to be a red herring. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/64 "2006-03-01T22:42:24Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > There was a thread on this very subject not too long ago (which I can’t seem to find) - some places in the US do indeed expect and need locals to pay for their services via donations. [And some demand payment for service.](http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060217/ca_pr_on_od/us_members_only_firefighters) > [@John Mace](#): > > Why can’t a Christian, who believes that the soul is present at conception, think it is murder to kill a fetus, but still believe that charity should be voluntary? It’s one thing to say “thou shalt not kill”. It’s another to say “thou shalt tax they neighbor to support the poor”. Because Jesus never said a word about abortion, but was all about that helping the poor thing. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/65 "2006-03-01T22:46:48Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No. I don’t favor randomly killing people in the street, but that doesn’ mean I favor supporting those people if they choose not to work. This is not analogous. A baby has no choices. By your logic, if a live baby is found abandoned in a trash can, the state should just let it lie there and die. > [@](#): > > Why can’t a Christian, who believes that the soul is present at conception, think it is murder to kill a fetus, but still believe that charity should be voluntary? It’s one thing to say “thou shalt not kill”. It’s another to say “thou shalt tax they neighbor to support the poor”. Jesus didn’t say that charity was voluntary. He also said to pay your taxes, even if you feel those taxes are unjust. The bigger hypocrisy, though, is the lack of compassion and dereliction of moral responsibility towards those who are the most helpless. You can’t say you care about fetuses in the womb if you don’t give a shit about them after they’re born. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/66 "2006-03-01T22:49:25Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Why have a fire department? If your house is on fire, why should I have to pay to put it out? If you want to put out your house fire, pay for it yourself. Sure. And we had a thread just recently on precisely that sort of arrangement. So what? Sounds fine. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/67 "2006-03-01T22:51:06Z")
> [@What Exit?](#): > > I consider Public education, Trial by Peers and a strong military too be 3 things we should want to pay for. They all make the country stronger and better. Good for you. How is that remotely relevant to what a strict libertarian would want? > [@](#): > > Are you seriously proposing we increase the numbers of the uneducated in this country or are you playing Devil’s advocate to the max? I’m saying that it’s a principled, consistent position to hold, not the result of a malicious soul or a desire to repress women, children or puppies. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/68 "2006-03-01T22:51:43Z")
It occurs to me that I never should have attempted to answer the response about Christian consistency because I wasn’t talking about Christians in the first place, I was talking about pro-lifers. They are not the same thing. Christian doctrine was irrelevant to my point and I shouldn’t have let myself get sidetracked by it. The hypocrisy I was talking about was solely that which pertained to the inconsistency of claiming to care about babies only until the second they’re born. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/69 "2006-03-01T22:52:22Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Hmm. Ok, I’d accept that as a possibility. Most people who want laws a certain way start off small, and work their way up, and it would make sense that they’d target non-taxpayers first. I can see how a strict libertarian might move that way. > > So why then does this proposal not affect males? er… because males are not the recipients of such services? What analgous free services are males receiving? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/70 "2006-03-01T22:55:27Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > This is not analogous. A baby has no choices. By your logic, if a live baby is found abandoned in a trash can, the state should just let it lie there and die. Not the same thing. What’s wrong with saying that if you can’t support your baby, give it up for adoption, but don’t make me pay for it. > [@](#): > > Jesus didn’t say that charity was voluntary. He also said to pay your taxes, even if you feel those taxes are unjust. But he didn’t say don’t try to change the laws if you disagree with them. Which is all this person is doing here. He’s not saying not to pay taxes, he just wants to change what the taxes are used for. > [@](#): > > The bigger hypocrisy, though, is the lack of compassion and dereliction of moral responsibility towards those who are the most helpless. You can’t say you care about fetuses in the womb if you don’t give a shit about them after they’re born. You problem is that define “give a shit” too narrowly. As I said, if you can’t support your kid, you need to consider adoption. Why must we assume that the best option is for the kid to stay with the mother and be supported by the state? Of course the best strategy is to not have the kid in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/71 "2006-03-01T22:58:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > er… because males are not the recipients of such services? What analgous free services are males receiving? …Good point. :smack: Sorry about that, clearly I wasn’t thinking. Alright, I’d accept that a strict libertarian could hold such views without them being misogynistic. So, are the Wisconsin senators strict libertarians? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/72 "2006-03-01T23:00:39Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Because Jesus never said a word about abortion, but was all about that helping the poor thing. Was there anyone in his sphere of influence who favored abortion? There would have been no reason to bring it up. Jesus, like the constitution, is silent on the matter of abortion. His talk of charity was always in terms of what the individual should do, not what the state should do. Standing at the Pearly Gates, when God asks you how you helped the poor, do you think it’s acceptable to say “I never gave to charity, but I always paid my taxes”? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/73 "2006-03-01T23:10:05Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Because Jesus never said a word about abortion, but was all about that helping the poor thing. “Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages and given to the poor?” So Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/74 "2006-03-01T23:12:11Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > So, are the Wisconsin senators strict libertarians? Doubtful indeed. Of course, I was making the point that there are potentially reasons to support this that do not involve invidious suppression of women… not that any given supporter has any particular viewpoint. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/75 "2006-03-01T23:14:55Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The bigger hypocrisy, though, is the lack of compassion and dereliction of moral responsibility towards those who are the most helpless. You can’t say you care about fetuses in the womb if you don’t give a shit about them after they’re born. Nonsense. You can support laws against murder, but not favor public charity of any kind. Again looking at the libetarian world, you can be guided by the principle of non-coercion: prohibit only the initiation of force against an unwilling recipient, and nothing else. If someone starves on his own, that’s no business of the government; if he’s killed by another, that is an initiation of force. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/76 "2006-03-01T23:16:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Doubtful indeed. > > Of course, I was making the point that there are potentially reasons to support this that do not involve invidious suppression of women… not that any given supporter has any particular viewpoint. Well, yes, there are. But the problem is that people here are suggesting that the _senators involved_ wanted to “insidiously suppress women”, or similar. You’ve made the point that a group of people might have reasons other than this - and it’s a good point - but that doesn’t have any bearing on either this situation nor the suggestion of others in this thread that _these_ senators might hold those views. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/77 "2006-03-01T23:24:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages and given to the poor?” > > So Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.” Okeedokee then. Next time I have the choice between providing conveniences for the Only Son of the Living God of Abraham and giving everything to the poor, I’ll make sure to choose the former. However, while the Magdalene had that choice to make, I’m unlikely to face it any time soon. Yanno **Rick** , all this squabbling could have been avoided had you chosen not to bait the libbies to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/78 "2006-03-01T23:26:24Z")
Just sayin’ is all. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/79 "2006-03-01T23:40:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …snip… > > > [@What Exit?](#): > > > > Are you seriously proposing we increase the numbers of the uneducated in this country or are you playing Devil’s advocate to the max? > > I’m saying that it’s a principled, consistent position to hold, not the result of a malicious soul or a desire to repress women, children or puppies. So is it your view or are you just stating your hypothetical strict libertarian position? Jim ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601/80 "2006-03-02T00:41:04Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Well, yes, there are. But the problem is that people here are suggesting that the _senators involved_ wanted to “insidiously suppress women”, or similar. You’ve made the point that a group of people might have reasons other than this - and it’s a good point - but that doesn’t have any bearing on either this situation nor the suggestion of others in this thread that _these_ senators might hold those views. I see. What evidence, precisely, was adduced for the claim that these senators hold such misogynistic views, then? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-senators-trying-stop-birth-control-for-poor-women/346601.md?page=5)