People don't need birth control if they aren't having irresponsible sex. There is no reason to control birth without sex. So yes, I am paying for people to be able to have sexual relations and control their ability to get pregnant while doing so.
I've got to ask. So are you saying that people should only have sex if they want children? Or are willing to risk having children even if they don't want them, or are not in a fit state to have them one way or another? Or are willing to have more children than they can reasonably provide for (and then expect the taxpayers to foot the bill if they can't)?
A friend of mine has severe mental health problems and as she would probably not be able to cope, she and her partner decided against having children. Another friend has severe epilepsy and is on medication that would have disastrous consequences for the fetus if she were to get pregnant. She will be on those meds for life. If she stopped taking them, her life would be at risk. She has decided she would rather not have children. Do you call this having irresponsible sex?
And I know several other people who just simply don't want children despite being in solid relationships, married, and so on. Some of them may want them later, some maybe not. Does that mean they should just give up having sex? Get sterilised?
Is it only certain people who should be allowed to have sex then?
Birth control has a pretty high failure rate with actual use. How many people have you heard of getting pregnant while using "protection"? The condom broke, they skipped a pill, they took antibiotics...so yes, I do think if they are unable or unwilling to care for children, they should not be engaging in sex. There is almost always a possibility of pregnancy, even with "control".
So yes, I do think people should be having sex when they are in a secure relationship, where they are resonsible enough to understand they might end up with a child and be able to deal with it.
You are wrong about the effectiveness of birth control.
https://www.optionsforsexualhealth.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control-options/effectiveness
And, I'll just throw this out there, not all marriages/relationships last forever. Just for the record, seeing as you mention relationship security.
So, let me get this right. You are saying, essentially, that people with disabilities who have decided to not have children because they feel they couldn't cope with the duties of parenting due to their disabilities, or who don't wish to risk passing on a condition to a putative child, or who don't want to risk birth defects that the medications they are on can cause to the fetus, or who don't want to risk dying themselves during pregnancy if they stop the medication they need to control their condition, shouldn't have sex. Because if they end up with a child, they likely wouldn't be able to deal with that. You call the fact that they use birth control having irresponsible sex? Are you for real? Is there anything else you'd like to exclude people with disabilities from - perhaps education, seeing as many need special provisions for, say, examinations, lab practicals, building/room access etc., and at least some money for that usually comes from tax?
If people don't want children for whatever reason, or don't want them at a certain point in their lives, your opinion is that they shouldn't have sex altogether. Should they just be forbidden from having relationships then, to eliminate the need for birth control? So that they won't be having what you call irresponsible sex?
And I haven't heard you say anything about people who may perhaps not be opposed to having (more) children per se, but who, very responsibly in my opinion, decide that they do not want (any more) children because they are not in a financial position to provide for them. Because if they have that second, third, fourth, seventh or whichever child, they will not be able to pay their bills, their rent, their groceries, the expensive holidays they want to go on every year, or extravagant Christmases they want every year, whatever. Blimey, some of them may even be in secure relationships, only they simply can't afford financially to have more children. All I've heard is you griping about not being entitled to receive financial aid from the state because you earn above the threshold. So having more children than you can feed, or more children than you want, is OK? Because at some point, the state financial aid will kick in? And you say that the birth of your second child meant you couldn't pay bills etc., so what happens when you get pregnant with your third, fourth, etc.? You want family aid and the taxpayers to pay for your bills, right? Because you think you are entitled to it. You are the one having irresponsible sex here.
It wasn't that long ago that many women were having a child almost every year, however much they didn't want that, and however much they risked their health (or even their lives) and sometimes the health and lives of their children by doing so, because there was no birth control to help them. (Men had their marriage rights, of course, which was unlimited sex whenever they wanted, no matter what the consequences.) Maternal and infant mortality were much higher than today. Do you fancy going back to that?
. People shouldn't have sex for fun?! And only partake if they're ready for a child to come of it?! Bloody nora.
