The Contraception Coverage Debate in the U.S. - Page 14

On March 03 2012 09:38 aminoashley wrote:



People are going to have sex regardless, but not everybody is going to be a drunk, so I dont think that analogy is really appropriate. Its pretty ignorant to say that we are just paying for "women to have sex" because there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that any sort of birth control method makes women more promiscuous than they would normally be. And abortion is an entirely different issue- there has not been an increase in the number of embryos (not babies) that have been aborted, there has just been less women dying from unsafe abortions. People are going to do what they want, so we might as well make it safe.

On March 03 2012 16:04 furerkip wrote:


Well, if I'm going to murder your family, you wouldn't want me to be safe right? You'd actually want justice to be brought down upon me. Whether it be vengeful or not, you'd want that. I think you and I can agree that we shouldn't make immoral acts safe for the public; for example, pissing on a homeless man, should we make it so the homeless man has no right to retaliate? I don't think that's right, because we must defend injustice with justice and not any other way.

So we really have to realize, that when creating a society, if the government's only goal is to make sure everyone is safe, we will have anarchy, revolution, and all that. By creating a safety for everyone, and the government totally at our will, the government does not govern but is rather governed; suffice it to say, the society will self-destruct as we can see from any country where government is totally gotten rid of (which is the equivalent of a government not governing). The governing body should not be dependent on what is governed. It stands for reason that you should not allow yourself to become so drunk that your reason cannot control you anymore (that is to say, completely drunk). In this state, you know that you cannot govern yourself, leading you to become convicted of random involuntary things if you get caught.

It should be reasonable that we expect our governments to help us become better. After all, why manage something if you cannot make it better than what was expected with no help? The government should not keep us safe as the primary goal, but safety of the citizen should be a consequence of the government doing its duty for us. I assume you're a liberal (you can probably tell I have conservative views) or libertarian, so I don't actually want to talk about sex as a moral issue. But I think you can agree that too much sex is bad for you, medically and emotionally. It makes sense that women would become more promiscuous after the policy is passed; the idea that you can now do it freely, and actually have the government support you by supplying birth control, you can easily come to the idea that sex is now an entity that is unlimited for you.

On March 03 2012 16:12 WOPR wrote:
@Focuspants

i agree but there are other factors to consider. Disease Control.

On March 03 2012 16:09 Focuspants wrote:


This post is so sensationalized and ridiculous its unbelievable. EVERYONE FUCKS. Making birth control part of health care plans isnt going to collapse your nation or turn it into a giant orgy. Its the 21st century. People bone. We have methods of making that safe. We should use them. You are far from libertarian with the views you express my friend.

On March 03 2012 16:14 SiroKO wrote:
I really have a big problem with those who act like if abortion wasn't a big deal.
I mean you can do that choice, but believing that it is no big deal is out of my mind.

On March 03 2012 16:26 sandg wrote:
This kind of thing sometimes (very rarely) think that the anti-defamation laws we have in australia might be a good thing... you can't broadcast that sort of thing without getting sued for defamation here.

On March 03 2012 16:14 SiroKO wrote:
I really have a big problem with those who act like if abortion wasn't a big deal.
I mean you can do that choice, but believing that it is no big deal is out of my mind.

There's a non-nonsensical date, which differ in a lot of countries, from which feticide is not allowed and recognized as a crime.
Just to let everyone know, this date makes no medical sense.

And because this date makes no sense, and that medicine progress, it will most likely be prolonged in the years to come since it's in the interest of our mass consumption society.
To justify this, they will say that it's going to put an end to the general hypocrisy since rich pregnant girls already manage to abort after the first and second trimesters.

In the end, using this rethoric ad infinitum, they might allow girls to freely abort until the last day, and why not even after ?

Philosophically, there's no transcendental moral barrier between aborting at the 8 months and 3 weeks and putting an end to the life of a 1 day old child.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/it-should-be-ok-to-kill-newborns/story-fn6e1m7z-1226286786404

I mean, we're in a forum where a lot of people respect East-Asian culture.
Why no one mentioned the fact that people here are 1 old more because they consider that someone's born after conception, not after he is extracted from his mother's womb ?

It would be much a much more sane debate if people weren't systematically dismissing non-politically correct opinions as outdated and bigoted.

On March 03 2012 16:29 furerkip wrote:


You make it seem like America lacks these laws...

We have laws against libel and slander. He can be sued for slander against her (if we find evidence that indeed she is not a slut lol), and she will probably win.

On March 03 2012 16:26 furerkip wrote:


I know, I stated I was conservative LOL.

Actually, I think you sensationalized it by yourself :\. I'll give a shortened form:

Government should be used to make use better.
By this, we can say that government should not advocate immoral behavior.
If something is neither immoral nor moral, government should not concern itself with it.
If it is immoral, government should actively tell its citizens not to do that through laws and reforms.

I sincerely doubt you would say that sexual intercourse with multiple people is moral and should be advocated by the government.

Everyone has always had sex, yes, that is indeed true. I will not refute that, because it would mean nothing.

We should have methods to keep it safe; yes, that is true.

However, what is better, prevention or the cure? I choose prevention every day of the week.

Let us examine this thoroughly; let us say Risk A exists with hidden Risk B, in pleasurable situation X. Risk A is an obvious showing that something that results of X is bad; therefore, situation X should not be experience multiple times and it should be handled cautiously. Cure M has been created to make sure that Risk A is free from situation X, thus making X easier to do. Now, let us assume Cure M is widespread. This becomes a problem, as Risk B is not obvious, and now everyone thinks that since Risk A is gotten rid of, we can experience situation X infinite amount of times because the Cure M exists and now everyone can get Risk A with no problems. Do you get it? It's problematic because of risks that aren't obvious (risk A here is equivalent to a child, situation X is sex, and Cure M is birth control, Risk B for me is morality being destroyed).

On March 03 2012 15:55 Focuspants wrote:


You be fair. Go watch the clip. He clearly calls Obama a snob for supporting people getting a college education (he says Obama wants everyone to get one which is not true, he wants it to be ACCESSIBLE to all that have worked hard enough to get in). He then says that colleges are liberal brainwashing centers, churning out liberals by converting good religous christian folk. He also talks about how colleges strip people of their faith through brainwashing (the irony is delicious) and then goes on to promote the idea of homeschooling.

Rick Santorum is batshit crazy. He wants to ban porn, contraceptives, abortion, states that the constitution doesnt give you a right to privacy even in your own home, doesnt believe in a seperation of church and state, believes that colleges are evil and homeschooling is the answer to Americas education woes, and the list goes on. He should be deemed insane and put into an asylum. He is an embarrasment to your country. He is actually comedy material outside of America. He is literally every negative stereotype of the US rolled into the shape of a human being.