Hehe, I was thinking the same thing.
Unless they’re eighteen or over?
And the quote in post #5 was a comment specifically on the OP’s comment that right-to-life movement was more about controlling women’s bodies than about being against abortion.
You are seriously one of the most intellectually dishonest posters ever.
You’ve seriously got shit for brains.
I mean it. I suspect that instead of brain tissue, your heard is packed with fecal material, which in some strange, medically unknown manner, is controlling your body’s autonomous functions. I imagine it’s bull shit, but it might be pig shit or goat shit. It’s hard to discern the subtle differences simply from reading what you write. It’s unquestionably some form of shit, however. Get your head examined. You’ll make medical history. Maybe even get a syndrome named after you. Neurotik Cranial-Fecal Impaction Syndrome, they’ll call it.
To briefly discuss and rebut the actual fact in dispute here, Cranial-Fecal Boy, let us review your comment:
I had suggested, by means of a sarcastic post to the contrary, that it was possible to support the measure discussed in the OP without harboring any particular animus towards female sexual expression. I was asked for examples of such reasoning. I provided an example of the libertarian reaction to such a plan. You then stumbled along and brayed that we weren’t discussing libertarians; we were discussing the pro-life movement and the motives of the sponsors of the bill… thus putting the cart so far in front of the horse that to the cart, the horse is but a speck on the horizon.
I know the mechanics of debate are mystifying to you, given your tragic Cranial-Fecal Impaction. But if you concentrate hard enough, perhaps a few flecks of the manure in your head may actually grow synapses and fire neurons sufficient for you to comprehend the way it works. I was answering the question: are there potential motives here other than animus against feminist sexual expression? Having answered that, you now attempt to reframe what I should be answering, and inveigh against me for failing to answer it. A slick move, if you were contending against another similarly-equipped C-F sufferer. Against any reader actually bringing a brain to the analytical task, however, it fails woefully.
That’d make sense, but they’re only not paying for contraceptives for those in a specific age range and gender. What reasoning would this strict libertarian view have to make such a distinction? Surely for someone who believes that the government should not pay for contraceptives for teenagers would also believe the same should hold true for people of both genders and all age ranges?
Aw. I’m crushed. 
And yet, nobody had said anything different. The right-to-lifers and moral guardians were the ones who are pushing this bill and the quote about controlling women’s bodies was a direct comment on that. And you know it, your typical weaselling notwithstanding.
So, let me walk you through things here, since you’re too stupid to do it yourself. The OP says:
To which niblet_head quotes pretty much this exact passage and comments:
Those are the only two comments regarding people trying to control women’s bodies in the thread when you make this comment:
So, we have a situation where the only two people who mentioned controlling the dirty sexual urges in women were specifically singling out the pro-life/moral majority types. Neither said that all people behind this bill fit that profile, nor did they say that the only reason anyone would ever support this bill is for that reason.
'Fess up, you were simply trying to derail things by setting up one of your pathetic little strawmen to distract everyone from the fact that the people who drew up this bill ARE trying to simply control the dirty sexual urges of children since not one of them (that I am aware of) brought up fiscal/libertarian reasons for pushing this through.
**Bricker ** does appear to like to only answer those questions he feels like. By picking and choosing a few side issues, he can avoid the main issue. Of course this is common to a lot of people, not just Bricker.
This is only my opinion of course.
Jim
::gets set to hit submit and goes to preview one… last… time… ::
Well, writing a response that says exactly what **Neurotik ** said was clearly a waste of time. 
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I would like to ask why those in the right to life movement who are inclined to support stupid attempts such as this bill never seem to want to support what really heads off unwanted pregnancies and STDs in young women, ie education and fostering of healthy self-regard.
But then, I already know the answer.
I saw that today, too, and it sure make this action look stupid.
Now, as a libertarian leaning guy, I can somewhat appreciate where **Bricker **is coming from. But the fact is, we don’t live in a libertarian society, so opposing birth control for teenagers (even if they have parental permission) is an invitation to higher spending of public funds, not lower. Bad legislators! No donuts for you!
Question: Since the bill only affects girls aged 15-17, what if the girl is 14? Are girls going to be sending in their younger sisters to get their Birth Control Devices (we have many)?
Wow. That’s totally incomprehensible to me – but then, I’m a dirty socialist Canadian, so I suppose it would be.
I don’t think it’s coincidental that Canada has a teen pregnancy rate of about half that of the United States, (in spite of our age-of-consent which is 4 - 6 years lower than the U.S.,) and that a smaller percentage of those pregnancies end in abortion.
And they’re working to increase that gap? Way to go!
Why is the country that’s arguably the best in the world in so many ways also so freaking backwards in others?
Well, they may view this step as the first in a series that removes funding for all people, with the distinction being that minors are not likely to be taxpayers, and thus have even less claim on government services than adults.
Wow, want to do away with Public schools also for all those deadbeat kids also.
Jim (mostly teasing)
What of it? Your imputation to the right-to-life camp of the evil desire to control women’s bodies was and remains simple unsupported invective. I am a 'right to life" person, because I believe that an embryo is a human being, and entitled to the protection of law. My motive is not to repress women’s sexual expression – it is to preserve the life of unborn human beings.
The broad brush used to tar pro-lifers is, however, too broad to accomplish a fair characterization.
Not at all. I don’t agree that the people that sponsored this bill are trying to control the dirty sexual urges of women.
Now, it’s possible that they may be trying to control the sexual activity of children. But in this country, children do not have an unfettered legal right to sexual expression in the same way adults do. So if, in fact, part of the motive for this bill arises from a desire to curb the sexual behavior of children, that is not an impermissible motive.
Keep in mind that this is proposed legislation, not something that has already passed. You guys don’t get whacky pieces of legislation thrown up from time to time?
Absolutely. A libertarian would most certainly want to do away with public schools. If you want schooling for your kids, pay for it… why should a childless couple be forced to pay for schools?
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.
Are you seriously proposing we increase the numbers of the uneducated in this country or are you playing Devil’s advocate to the max?
Jim
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?
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.
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?
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?