|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 22 2014 10:46 oneofthem wrote:
the acceptable answer has to take into account the clear interest in managing crop harvest variance? this is not rocket science. maybe farmers don't want to set aside two years worth of capital...?
Yeah so we agree on the fact that it's a question of profit and revenu and not a question of output ?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not at all. you've yet to substantiate your assertion that gmo does not boost output. all the wide level reports i've seen describe higher yield. but since the rest of your argument is so bad it wasn't relevant for me to challenge that assertion.
|
On October 22 2014 07:04 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 03:33 WhiteDog wrote:
I personally consider that protecting nature should be one of our top priority in this day and age, and GMO have bad impacts not on health but in biodiversity - not only GMO but also modern "intensive" agriculture".
The gain behind GMO are hugely overstated, we actually produce enough food for everybody, but there is too much waste and some people just eat more than they should. The best quality that GMO have for the agro industry is that they permit pattern and monopole like situations. It's about profit, not human well being or research. You simply do not know what you are talking about. The only reason we can have a sustainable population of nearly 8+ billion is because of GMO. It's like people are completely ignorant of Norman Borlaug. This has nothing to do with the science of GMO's, it's your primitive ideology which drives your viewpoints. Technology bad - Nature good. Then there is the latent disdain for any private proprietorship (the bigger the more hate, regardless of any facts surrounding the firms...GE and other Fascist companies just as terrible as say...Amazon). None of which has anything at all to do with science of GMO's. I mean, if you want to starve a few billion people then getting rid of GMO would be one way to do it.
You have very little idea what you are talking about. Norman Borlaug did a variety of things, very few of which have to do with genetic modification in the sense we are talking about. Most of his successes were done with crossbreeding of plants, using techniques that have been used, more or less, for centuries.
GMO crops have increased the prices of seeds for the most part, offsetting any increased yields with higher costs, and so it's not like the consumer is seeing an overabundance of savings.
@oneofthem
There are plenty of other risks from GMO: soil conservation problems, GMOs require intensive farming with a lot of capital inputs, gene-hopping from corn to other species, etc.
Not to mention that it seems perfectly defensible to want to label GMOs simply because you disagree with the application of the technology. The technology might be kind of neutral, but there is plenty to disagree with in Monsanto's and others' applications of the technology, and consumers might want to know which foods are GMO. And like I said many pages ago, GMO labeling would foster more goodwill through increased transparency. The food industry is a shady, shitty business in many ways, and better labeling and more public outreach would go a long way in shaping this country's eating habits. A relentless emphasis on profits over health has shaped the electorate's health for the worse, and GMO labeling is a pretty small step towards better communication.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
GMO does not require intensive farming, rather the current cost of getting a strain approved makes only large scale strains sensible. in comparison less controlled processes(meaning more risky outcome) are less regulated and turn out more strains, such as the radioactivity bombing stuff
|
Radioactive mutation is a typical form of GMO. The most popular variety of grapefruit currently was created through radioactive mutation. Not sure what you are getting at.
And yes, GMO do require intensive farming methods. Getting greater yields per land requires a lot of capital inputs to maintain the soil, buy the herbicides, provide fertilizer, buy the higher-cost seeds that are usually purchased every growing season, water the plants, etc. Many of those inputs require oil-based products as well.
|
On October 22 2014 10:56 oneofthem wrote:
not at all. you've yet to substantiate your assertion that gmo does not boost output. all the wide level reports i've seen describe higher yield. but since the rest of your argument is so bad it wasn't relevant for me to challenge that assertion.
Why so bitter ?
I did not even challenge the idea that the yield was higher for GM crop. My sole point was that it was not a necessity to feed the world, that there are political problems.
In fact I don't even believe that a crop with a 300% the current highest productivity, with a good resistance, could feed the world : it's not a problem of output.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 11:00 IgnE wrote:
Radioactive mutation is a typical form of GMO. The most popular variety of grapefruit currently was created through radioactive mutation. Not sure what you are getting at.
And yes, GMO do require intensive farming methods. Getting greater yields per land requires a lot of capital inputs to maintain the soil, buy the herbicides, provide fertilizer, buy the higher-cost seeds that are usually purchased every growing season, water the plants, etc. Many of those inputs require oil-based products as well.
regulation is uneven precisely because of the irrational basis for targeting genetic engineering (by way of bacterial insertion of specific genes). the other breeding methods are either too new or too old to get attention.
and no, adoption of GM in developing countries is eclipsing what the U.S. does. the U.S. scale of farming is a beast of its own origins, and would still be the same without the 40 bucks per bag for your GMO seed.
|
1) can you provide a source discussing how much of the GM farming in other countries is extensive?
2) why should GM farming in other countries bear on a measure to label food in the US?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 11:01 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 10:56 oneofthem wrote:
not at all. you've yet to substantiate your assertion that gmo does not boost output. all the wide level reports i've seen describe higher yield. but since the rest of your argument is so bad it wasn't relevant for me to challenge that assertion. Why so bitter ? I did not even challenge the idea that the yield was higher for GM crop. My sole point was that it was not a necessity to feed the world, that there are political problems. In fact I don't even believe that a crop with a 300% the current highest productivity, with a good resistance, could feed the world : it's not a problem of output.
i think you did not read my post correctly. where did i say it was THE solution again? i made three points,
in response to the article you posted about GE corn or potatoes not having higher yield, because they were not necessarily made to increase yield through sheer productivity per acre but through other means, such as lessening risks.
in response to your criticism of the "GMO will feed the world" idea, i acknowledged the problem to be administrative and political, for obvious reasons. however, this does not then mean GMO does not help the problem. it already helps a lot of developing world farmers get better return on their land, and governments there are doing their best to use the technology because it's a game changer for certain regions.
the other stuff was about food waste, which is unrealistic to translate into food for the poor or whatever. how exactly are you going to reduce food waste while helping bangladesh farmers in the same move? this does not make sense.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 11:08 IgnE wrote:
1) can you provide a source discussing how much of the GM farming in other countries is extensive?
2) why should GM farming in other countries bear on a measure to label food in the US?
what exactly do you mean by extensive farming anyway? indian cotton farmers count? how about chinese rice paddies.
and for the 2nd point because you made the general assertion about GMOs requiring intensive farming? if you are using the U.S. situation to prove this point it is invalid for aforementioned counterexamples.
|
Those probably don't count, depending on who owns them and how they are being farmed. It depends what the inputs are. But the general rule of thumb is that if you want a higher yield per acre you have to do more work and put more into the soil, regardless of what kind of crop it is. GMO crops, which can be higher yield, therefore require more inputs to achieve those higher yields, which is only really useful if you are running out of land to grow food on.
|
On October 22 2014 09:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 08:57 DoubleReed wrote:From that source: Planned Parenthood recently released an ad in North Carolina warning: “Just when insurance is finally covering the cost of prescription birth control, Thom Tillis [the Republican] says no—women should pay the $600 dollars a year…he’s turning the pill into yet another bill.” To be clear, Democrats are not necessarily opposed to legalizing OTC birth control, but rather they want to ensure women don’t have to pay for it. Would it be possible to do both? Not without another round of people like Rush calling women who use birth control (while unaware of/ignoring the multiple other medical purposes) and want it to be covered as "sluts" and "whores". He didn't call her a prostitute for using it, but for lobbying to congress that the taxpayer should cover it. Come on now, how dense can you be? I wouldn't respond, except what you said displays an apparent inability to read and comprehend. I'm not aware of anyone saying that just using it makes you a prostitute. Is this another viewpoint you falsely attribute to the right? Your second part is more to the point: those who want to it be covered. The first statement is entirely false, so far as I can tell.
Now that's funny...
Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.
She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps.
The johns, that's right. We would be the johns — no! We're not the johns. Well — yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word.
OK, so, she's not a slut. She's round-heeled. I take it back.
Source
Poor Rush... Having his words so horribly misconstrued...
Your nitpicking point was what I meant anyway...But the first part of my statement is pretty well implied by the part in bold. Besides displaying a remarkable ignorance of how birth control works and the reasons many people use it, Rush's comment, imo, doesn't speak much better of women using it in general regardless of who's paying for it.
Also, considering that virtually all women use it at some point and virtually all men should, it seems like one of the more sensible things to pool our resources to pay for. Christian's use it too! Even though they are pretty much the sole opposition to it being accessible/covered.
"Guttmacher’s analysis of data from the federal government’s National Survey of Family Growth found that the vast majority of American women of reproductive age (15–44) — including 99% of all sexually experienced women and 98% of those who identify themselves as Catholic — have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point.
Source
Between the sluts, and prostitutes that conservatives think are going to be making a killing with all the free sex they can have, and that birth control use/access/pooled payment will destroy their delicate sensibilities, opponents of covering birth control look more and more foolish.
Before we even touch the cost stuff. Let's just admit that an unwanted child costs the government more than a lifetime of birth control.
|
|
|
On October 22 2014 11:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 09:52 Introvert wrote:On October 22 2014 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 08:57 DoubleReed wrote:From that source: Planned Parenthood recently released an ad in North Carolina warning: “Just when insurance is finally covering the cost of prescription birth control, Thom Tillis [the Republican] says no—women should pay the $600 dollars a year…he’s turning the pill into yet another bill.” To be clear, Democrats are not necessarily opposed to legalizing OTC birth control, but rather they want to ensure women don’t have to pay for it. Would it be possible to do both? Not without another round of people like Rush calling women who use birth control (while unaware of/ignoring the multiple other medical purposes) and want it to be covered as "sluts" and "whores". He didn't call her a prostitute for using it, but for lobbying to congress that the taxpayer should cover it. Come on now, how dense can you be? I wouldn't respond, except what you said displays an apparent inability to read and comprehend. I'm not aware of anyone saying that just using it makes you a prostitute. Is this another viewpoint you falsely attribute to the right? Your second part is more to the point: those who want to it be covered. The first statement is entirely false, so far as I can tell. Now that's funny... Show nested quote +Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.
She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps.
The johns, that's right. We would be the johns — no! We're not the johns. Well — yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word.
OK, so, she's not a slut. She's round-heeled. I take it back. SourcePoor Rush... Having his words so horribly misconstrued... Your nitpicking point was what I meant anyway...But the first part of my statement is pretty well implied by the part in bold. Besides displaying a remarkable ignorance of how birth control works and the reasons many people use it, Rush's comment, imo, doesn't speak much better of women using it in general regardless of who's paying for it. + Show Spoiler +Also, considering that virtually all women use it at some point and virtually all men should, it seems like one of the more sensible things to pool our resources to pay for. Christian's use it too! Even though they are pretty much the sole opposition to it being accessible/covered. "Guttmacher’s analysis of data from the federal government’s National Survey of Family Growth found that the vast majority of American women of reproductive age (15–44) — including 99% of all sexually experienced women and 98% of those who identify themselves as Catholic — have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point.
SourceBetween the sluts, and prostitutes that conservatives think are going to be making a killing with all the free sex they can have, and that birth control use/access/pooled payment will destroy their delicate sensibilities, opponents of covering birth control look more and more foolish. Before we even touch the cost stuff. Let's just admit that an unwanted child costs the government more than a lifetime of birth control.
The last half was irrelevant. lol, you are upset with me for nitpicking? That's good, ahaha.
I had more written, but the simple fact remains- it had everything to do with having the taxpayer cover sexual encounters, essentially. That is what he was commenting on. He didn't say she was a prostitute for just having sex.
Again, I said the truth or falsity was not the point. I have no stake or particular care for Rush either way. But to make this about birth control in general is wrong-headed. The entire criticism was based on having someone else pay for another's sexual bouts. I just comment because I am consistently amazed at your ability to read way too far into something, and be right less than 50% of the time.
He could be wrong (as you think he is) and it doesn't change the content of his point.
That's all I have to say, just thought I'd point that out. If you disagree, whatever.
|
On October 22 2014 11:28 IgnE wrote:
Those probably don't count, depending on who owns them and how they are being farmed. It depends what the inputs are. But the general rule of thumb is that if you want a higher yield per acre you have to do more work and put more into the soil, regardless of what kind of crop it is. GMO crops, which can be higher yield, therefore require more inputs to achieve those higher yields, which is only really useful if you are running out of land to grow food on.
Do you not get any benefit from GMOs if you don't use intensive farming? Otherwise you're adding a variable cost that gets offset by a variable benefit.
Using expensive heavy machinery would require intensive, large scale farming. Maybe we need a label that says "Tractor" or "Tractor Free" 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i suggest the haber process labeling. made with chemical ammonia courtesy of haber und bosch.
incidentally this would be more sensible than GMO labeling since agricultural runoff is a legit issue
|
|
|
On October 22 2014 11:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 11:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 09:52 Introvert wrote:On October 22 2014 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 08:57 DoubleReed wrote:From that source: Planned Parenthood recently released an ad in North Carolina warning: “Just when insurance is finally covering the cost of prescription birth control, Thom Tillis [the Republican] says no—women should pay the $600 dollars a year…he’s turning the pill into yet another bill.” To be clear, Democrats are not necessarily opposed to legalizing OTC birth control, but rather they want to ensure women don’t have to pay for it. Would it be possible to do both? Not without another round of people like Rush calling women who use birth control (while unaware of/ignoring the multiple other medical purposes) and want it to be covered as "sluts" and "whores". He didn't call her a prostitute for using it, but for lobbying to congress that the taxpayer should cover it. Come on now, how dense can you be? I wouldn't respond, except what you said displays an apparent inability to read and comprehend. I'm not aware of anyone saying that just using it makes you a prostitute. Is this another viewpoint you falsely attribute to the right? Your second part is more to the point: those who want to it be covered. The first statement is entirely false, so far as I can tell. Now that's funny... Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.
She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps.
The johns, that's right. We would be the johns — no! We're not the johns. Well — yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word.
OK, so, she's not a slut. She's round-heeled. I take it back. SourcePoor Rush... Having his words so horribly misconstrued... Your nitpicking point was what I meant anyway...But the first part of my statement is pretty well implied by the part in bold. Besides displaying a remarkable ignorance of how birth control works and the reasons many people use it, Rush's comment, imo, doesn't speak much better of women using it in general regardless of who's paying for it. + Show Spoiler +Also, considering that virtually all women use it at some point and virtually all men should, it seems like one of the more sensible things to pool our resources to pay for. Christian's use it too! Even though they are pretty much the sole opposition to it being accessible/covered. "Guttmacher’s analysis of data from the federal government’s National Survey of Family Growth found that the vast majority of American women of reproductive age (15–44) — including 99% of all sexually experienced women and 98% of those who identify themselves as Catholic — have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point.
SourceBetween the sluts, and prostitutes that conservatives think are going to be making a killing with all the free sex they can have, and that birth control use/access/pooled payment will destroy their delicate sensibilities, opponents of covering birth control look more and more foolish. Before we even touch the cost stuff. Let's just admit that an unwanted child costs the government more than a lifetime of birth control. The last half was irrelevant. lol, you are upset with me for nitpicking? That's good, ahaha. I had more written, but the simple fact remains- it had everything to do with having the taxpayer cover sexual encounters, essentially. That is what he was commenting on. He didn't say she was a prostitute for just having sex. Again, I said the truth or falsity was not the point. I have no stake or particular care for Rush either way. But to make this about birth control in general is wrong-headed. The entire criticism was based on having someone else pay for another's sexual bouts. I just comment because I am consistently amazed at your ability to read way too far into something, and be right less than 50% of the time. He could be wrong (as you think he is) and it doesn't change the content of his point. That's all I have to say, just thought I'd point that out. If you disagree, whatever.
I do. He's not the only one either...
“And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let’s take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than Democrats have made them out to be.”
-Mike Huckabee (Potential Republican Presidential Nominee)
But whatever. There are also very literally women fighting to get it covered with 0 connection to contraception....
but 14% of pill users—1.5 million women—rely on them exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes.
Additionally, it found that some 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, and they do so almost exclusively (99%) for noncontraceptive reasons.
Menstrual-related disorders and irregular periods are particularly common during adolescence. Not surprisingly, the study found that teens aged 15–19 who use the pill are more likely to do so for non-contraceptive purposes (82%) than for birth control (67%). Moreover, 33% of teen pill users report using oral contraceptive pills solely for noncontraceptive purposes.
Source
Considering how many people use it (and how many more people should/could if they had inexpensive/free access) and it's benefits to society, it's hard to think of something that makes more sense for us to collectively pay for than birth control...?
Besides how ridiculously ignorant Rush and Mike's comments are, they are not going to be winning political messages either.
|
On October 22 2014 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 11:52 Introvert wrote:On October 22 2014 11:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 09:52 Introvert wrote:On October 22 2014 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 08:57 DoubleReed wrote:From that source: Planned Parenthood recently released an ad in North Carolina warning: “Just when insurance is finally covering the cost of prescription birth control, Thom Tillis [the Republican] says no—women should pay the $600 dollars a year…he’s turning the pill into yet another bill.” To be clear, Democrats are not necessarily opposed to legalizing OTC birth control, but rather they want to ensure women don’t have to pay for it. Would it be possible to do both? Not without another round of people like Rush calling women who use birth control (while unaware of/ignoring the multiple other medical purposes) and want it to be covered as "sluts" and "whores". He didn't call her a prostitute for using it, but for lobbying to congress that the taxpayer should cover it. Come on now, how dense can you be? I wouldn't respond, except what you said displays an apparent inability to read and comprehend. I'm not aware of anyone saying that just using it makes you a prostitute. Is this another viewpoint you falsely attribute to the right? Your second part is more to the point: those who want to it be covered. The first statement is entirely false, so far as I can tell. Now that's funny... Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.
She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps.
The johns, that's right. We would be the johns — no! We're not the johns. Well — yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word.
OK, so, she's not a slut. She's round-heeled. I take it back. SourcePoor Rush... Having his words so horribly misconstrued... Your nitpicking point was what I meant anyway...But the first part of my statement is pretty well implied by the part in bold. Besides displaying a remarkable ignorance of how birth control works and the reasons many people use it, Rush's comment, imo, doesn't speak much better of women using it in general regardless of who's paying for it. + Show Spoiler +Also, considering that virtually all women use it at some point and virtually all men should, it seems like one of the more sensible things to pool our resources to pay for. Christian's use it too! Even though they are pretty much the sole opposition to it being accessible/covered. "Guttmacher’s analysis of data from the federal government’s National Survey of Family Growth found that the vast majority of American women of reproductive age (15–44) — including 99% of all sexually experienced women and 98% of those who identify themselves as Catholic — have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point.
SourceBetween the sluts, and prostitutes that conservatives think are going to be making a killing with all the free sex they can have, and that birth control use/access/pooled payment will destroy their delicate sensibilities, opponents of covering birth control look more and more foolish. Before we even touch the cost stuff. Let's just admit that an unwanted child costs the government more than a lifetime of birth control. The last half was irrelevant. lol, you are upset with me for nitpicking? That's good, ahaha. I had more written, but the simple fact remains- it had everything to do with having the taxpayer cover sexual encounters, essentially. That is what he was commenting on. He didn't say she was a prostitute for just having sex. Again, I said the truth or falsity was not the point. I have no stake or particular care for Rush either way. But to make this about birth control in general is wrong-headed. The entire criticism was based on having someone else pay for another's sexual bouts. I just comment because I am consistently amazed at your ability to read way too far into something, and be right less than 50% of the time. He could be wrong (as you think he is) and it doesn't change the content of his point. That's all I have to say, just thought I'd point that out. If you disagree, whatever. I do. He's not the only one either... Show nested quote +“And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let’s take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than Democrats have made them out to be.”
-Mike Huckabee (Potential Republican Presidential Nominee) But whatever. There are also very literally women fighting to get it covered with 0 connection to contraception.... Show nested quote + but 14% of pill users—1.5 million women—rely on them exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes.
Additionally, it found that some 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, and they do so almost exclusively (99%) for noncontraceptive reasons.
Menstrual-related disorders and irregular periods are particularly common during adolescence. Not surprisingly, the study found that teens aged 15–19 who use the pill are more likely to do so for non-contraceptive purposes (82%) than for birth control (67%). Moreover, 33% of teen pill users report using oral contraceptive pills solely for noncontraceptive purposes.
SourceConsidering how many people use it (and how many more people should/could if they had inexpensive/free access) and it's benefits to society, it's hard to think of something that makes more sense for us to collectively pay for than birth control...? Besides how ridiculously ignorant Rush and Mike's comments are, they are not going to be winning political messages either.
What I meant by "if you disagree, whatever." was if you disagreed with what Rush's point was, then I don't care. The whole bit about "truth or falsity was not the point" should have been been the tip-off. You again managed to miss my point entirely. Whatever.
|
On October 22 2014 12:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 11:52 Introvert wrote:On October 22 2014 11:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 09:52 Introvert wrote:On October 22 2014 09:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 08:57 DoubleReed wrote:From that source: Planned Parenthood recently released an ad in North Carolina warning: “Just when insurance is finally covering the cost of prescription birth control, Thom Tillis [the Republican] says no—women should pay the $600 dollars a year…he’s turning the pill into yet another bill.” To be clear, Democrats are not necessarily opposed to legalizing OTC birth control, but rather they want to ensure women don’t have to pay for it. Would it be possible to do both? Not without another round of people like Rush calling women who use birth control (while unaware of/ignoring the multiple other medical purposes) and want it to be covered as "sluts" and "whores". He didn't call her a prostitute for using it, but for lobbying to congress that the taxpayer should cover it. Come on now, how dense can you be? I wouldn't respond, except what you said displays an apparent inability to read and comprehend. I'm not aware of anyone saying that just using it makes you a prostitute. Is this another viewpoint you falsely attribute to the right? Your second part is more to the point: those who want to it be covered. The first statement is entirely false, so far as I can tell. Now that's funny... Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.
She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps.
The johns, that's right. We would be the johns — no! We're not the johns. Well — yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word.
OK, so, she's not a slut. She's round-heeled. I take it back. SourcePoor Rush... Having his words so horribly misconstrued... Your nitpicking point was what I meant anyway...But the first part of my statement is pretty well implied by the part in bold. Besides displaying a remarkable ignorance of how birth control works and the reasons many people use it, Rush's comment, imo, doesn't speak much better of women using it in general regardless of who's paying for it. + Show Spoiler +Also, considering that virtually all women use it at some point and virtually all men should, it seems like one of the more sensible things to pool our resources to pay for. Christian's use it too! Even though they are pretty much the sole opposition to it being accessible/covered. "Guttmacher’s analysis of data from the federal government’s National Survey of Family Growth found that the vast majority of American women of reproductive age (15–44) — including 99% of all sexually experienced women and 98% of those who identify themselves as Catholic — have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point.
SourceBetween the sluts, and prostitutes that conservatives think are going to be making a killing with all the free sex they can have, and that birth control use/access/pooled payment will destroy their delicate sensibilities, opponents of covering birth control look more and more foolish. Before we even touch the cost stuff. Let's just admit that an unwanted child costs the government more than a lifetime of birth control. The last half was irrelevant. lol, you are upset with me for nitpicking? That's good, ahaha. I had more written, but the simple fact remains- it had everything to do with having the taxpayer cover sexual encounters, essentially. That is what he was commenting on. He didn't say she was a prostitute for just having sex. Again, I said the truth or falsity was not the point. I have no stake or particular care for Rush either way. But to make this about birth control in general is wrong-headed. The entire criticism was based on having someone else pay for another's sexual bouts. I just comment because I am consistently amazed at your ability to read way too far into something, and be right less than 50% of the time. He could be wrong (as you think he is) and it doesn't change the content of his point. That's all I have to say, just thought I'd point that out. If you disagree, whatever. I do. He's not the only one either... “And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let’s take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than Democrats have made them out to be.”
-Mike Huckabee (Potential Republican Presidential Nominee) But whatever. There are also very literally women fighting to get it covered with 0 connection to contraception.... but 14% of pill users—1.5 million women—rely on them exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes.
Additionally, it found that some 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, and they do so almost exclusively (99%) for noncontraceptive reasons.
Menstrual-related disorders and irregular periods are particularly common during adolescence. Not surprisingly, the study found that teens aged 15–19 who use the pill are more likely to do so for non-contraceptive purposes (82%) than for birth control (67%). Moreover, 33% of teen pill users report using oral contraceptive pills solely for noncontraceptive purposes.
SourceConsidering how many people use it (and how many more people should/could if they had inexpensive/free access) and it's benefits to society, it's hard to think of something that makes more sense for us to collectively pay for than birth control...? Besides how ridiculously ignorant Rush and Mike's comments are, they are not going to be winning political messages either. What I meant by "if you disagree, whatever." was if you disagreed with what Rush's point was, then I don't care. The whole bit about "truth or falsity was not the point" should have been been the tip-off. You again managed to miss my point entirely. Whatever.
I disagree with both his point and how you characterized it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
