Is there some benefit here for Trump voters?
I don't see it.
But then again, I don't see how a trade war against the world is going to "Make America Great Again" either. It is much more likely to do the opposite.
replies(7):
Edit: I was going to say, also don't get raped, but then I remembered, only people asking for it, i.e., Bad People get raped.
Also, all those so-called "experts" with their agendas are out on their asses where they belong! The private market is sufficiently incentivized to keep their workers healthy and develop treatments for whatever ails them.
Besides, we all know that if you just live a proper, completely monogamous lifestyle, you can't get an STD. Why should Trump voters pay for those that fall ill to their own sexual deviance?
Take your pick from these (and likely more) lines of reason.
Whether this will actually benefit Trump voters is an exercise left to them, but so far they seem to think it will.
(not my views, oversimplified take on fundamentalists and project 2025)
It's about pushing Judeo-Christian morality. Punishing women for having sex outside the goal of procreation.
This has the same goal, STDs are a punishment for loose morals. Preventing or curing them works against that punishment.
I mean, sex inevitably causes babies: it’s an incontrovertible but inconvenient truth for the modern urban human species. But we were designed that way, yes?
But that's all beside the point, none of this is something the government should be acting to coerce. Abstinence is fine as a personal choice.
But no, I don't value "chastity" or -- to phrase it more accurately -- denying women control over what happens with their own bodies.
People should have lots of sex! Sex is great!
Are you claiming there aren’t any?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_...: “In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eleven people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, a police officer, two people (unclear of their connection), and a clinic escort.
[…]
According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded,[I 30] 100 butyric acid stink bomb attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.
[…]
According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs")”
The real question is, must sex invariably lead to pregnancy when there are known ways to prevent it? Because that's precisely what you're trying to impose on others. Your answer is clear from your comment. But it's completely illogical.
Nothing in the laws of nature say that humans or any other creature can't use their creativity to disrupt the natural order of things to make life more comfortable. To my knowledge, no other creature uses fire to cook food. Yet, human digestive system is uniquely adapted to that. And other animals don't cultivate food on the scale that humans do. Many of the food crop species won't even survive without human effort. I also don't see many other animals using clothes or money. So are you ready to give up those unnatural things - cultivated and cooked food, clothes, money and all modern technology?
The same goes for vaccine - the natural way of diseases is for children/people to simply die on a massive scale. What's the point of going through that when we have a way of preventing it? Why must it be any different for contraception and treatment of STDs?
The real issue here is the imposition of certain beliefs and moral values that are stale by a few millennia on an unwilling population.
Meanwhile, the private companies are so incentivized to protect their workers' health that even employed people are dying of diabetes because they still can't afford insulin - something unthinkable in other countries! Insulin injections are so old and cheap to manufacter at this point. Did you forgot to mention that the employees must also be rich? And what about jobless or homeless people?
Meanwhile, about 68K people die annually of preventable diseases because their insurance claims on essential treatment get turned down by insurance companies against their doctors' determination. And that isn't charity money - it's what they paid the premiums for. How many of those thousands will be saved if you cut STD treatments, contraceptives and abortions nationwide?
There are less developed and more conservative countries in the world who know better. I don't understand how such obviously dangerous decisions can be spun as benefits for the masses!
Imagine how all the chemists who study cis/trans isomerization feel right now ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis%E2%80%93trans_isomerism
As someone who studied an cis/trans isomerase decades ago in grad school, I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but not completely.
unlike drinking, we have quite a few ways to enjoy sex without having babies.But some of those methods can still cause STDs. a vasectomy won't save you from herpes.
>If it turns out that it's significantly cheaper to be in a long-term monogamous relationship
1. Why are we applying the invisible market to our bodies? Do you understand how dehumanizing that is?
2. monagamous relationships can still get STDs. Despite the name, some can also be spread by simple skin contact. So don't shake the wrong person's hand, I guess.
* Rugged individualism: I stand on my own as an upright citizen made morally righteous by my (or my ancestor's) contributions. I have never needed nor would have accepted welfare (and all the welfare I actually did accept was not actually welfare and was mine by right).
* Moral indignation: there are freeloaders, scammers and grifters everywhere that are unfairly dependent on the welfare state. There's little agreement on who these freeloaders are, other than it's not the wealthy or powerful or people like themselves.
* Religiosity: America was founded as a Christian country and should return to its roots. Often, all the bad things happening in America are God's punishment, the work of the devil, or the natural consequence of wickedness and deviance.
* Anti-intellectualism: Book learning and higher education are just a program of radicalization to promote moral relativism and unjust authority of "elites", and a "culture war". Moreover, all the intellectuals/elites are equally suspect, even those that claim to be helping everyone by advocating for environmentalism, cures and prevention of disease, sound economic policy, social advocacy, etc.
* A desire for positional authority, both above them and for themselves: A sense that people that are rich or powerful are rightfully so. The pastor of your church is the positional moral authority. Your boss is the positional fiscal authority. The police are the criminal authority. The supreme court is the positional judicial authority. The president is the positional executive authority. A father has positional authority over his children. And (unstated), "real Americans" have positional authority over marginalized groups. Any sense that the authority must be earned, maintained or justified is rejected.
No, and there never has been and there are exactly zero people on Earth saying there is.
The problem with this viewpoint is that as soon as people say “hey, let’s not punish people” then people crawl out of the woodwork and cry about others attacking monogamy. Sigh, nobody is attacking monogamy. You are the status quo, you can calm down now.
> But we were designed that way, yes?
We were “designed” in a lot of ways, many of them stupid. For example, the infant mortality rate should be closer to 50%. That’s what it’s always been. Humans are extraordinarily shit at giving birth. It’s almost impressive how bad our bodies are at pushing out babies.
But it’s not, because of medicine. Even just since the 70s infant mortality has gone down significantly.
Appeal to nature is lame. I don’t even know what you consider is nature, and furthermore I don’t know why it’s good. You have to explain why what you’re saying is good. You didn’t do that, people with the argument usually don’t. That means you aren’t worth listening to.
False dichotomy. Furthermore, “treat” is a creepy term that tends to conjure up images of sticky lollipops and Hallowe’en bandits with loaded diapers.
Some of us prefer not to subsidize immoral behaviors and activity on group health plans.
But in a hypothetical parallel utopia where chemotherapy is 100% out-of-pocket, my people would welcome fewer deaths from chemotherapy, far fewer invasive biopsies & “spelunking” diagnostics, and perhaps increasing incentives to produce cures, rather than Kevorkians.
Vandalism and stink bombs are what bored teens do, trespassing is a person refusing to leave, and bomb threats are also called in by students hoping to avoid an exam.
As for what matters, even being nice and assuming all the arson crimes were serious..
The 41 bombings and 173 arson events over 48 years in all of North America is nothing