|
On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:14 Aeres wrote:
Why is this even up for discussion? It's not right to govern a woman's body in that manner just because one's personal beliefs conflict with how that woman chooses to live her life. It's ridiculous that religion plays such an integral role in how America determines policy.
Also, hi Ashley. :3 What's stupid is when people don't differentiate between religious freedom and making a law based on religion. Government forcing religious entities, private entities, to go against what they believe is wrong and goes against everything America was founded on.
I hate it when debates break out on TL about health care because half the people on this forum who make posts like this have done absolutely no research about health insurance and the health field (I work in it so I've gotten a ton of exposure to this stuff). The reason that birth control is included in health care provisions by companies is because, not only does it prevent unwanted pregnancy, but it serves a whole lot of good functions as well like the promote a balance in hormones. The fact that the pill also has the side effect of giving a woman control of when she has kids is completely and utterly irrelevant to the topic. The only reason that this is a controversial issue is that the American far right has made it a goal to try to control every aspect of daily life that they do not find pleasing.
Another part of it is that it's completely stupid for someone to be able to deny someone coverage of a particular portion of health care due to religious reasons. Say my religion was against the usage of antibiotics. Do I automatically get to deny all my employees access to antibiotics to satisfy my religious beliefs? Sigh... people who don't know what they're talking about irk me.
|
On March 03 2012 17:04 biology]major wrote:
That girl's (from georgetown law)argument was extremely weak and quite frankly it irritated me. She's basically complaining about contraception being too expensive when shes a broke college student, and she could avoid it by simply not having sex (WOW BIG DEAL). I mean there is literally no health risk for not having sex, so how can she even ask the government to mandate such a thing. The only instance where she had a case was with some females needing contraceptive care to treat ovarian cysts, but other than that I just felt like laughing at everything she said.
If government offers contraceptive coverage, that is perfectly fine, however trying to make a case for government to cover these issues based on HER argument was just lols. It's literally like me going to court and asking government to cover shaving cream or something ridiculous.
point being, if you are a broke college student don't try to ask government to cover contraception when you can just be abstinent, (or anal or oral). There has to be a health risk involved, saying "it's too expensive" for a luxury item is laughable.
You clearly didn't listen to what she said... I suggest you listen to it again instead of taking the pundit of your choice words for it.
|
On March 03 2012 16:04 furerkip wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 09:38 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 09:25 furerkip wrote:On March 03 2012 05:14 Aeres wrote:
Why is this even up for discussion? It's not right to govern a woman's body in that manner just because one's personal beliefs conflict with how that woman chooses to live her life. It's ridiculous that religion plays such an integral role in how America determines policy.
Also, hi Ashley. :3 The argument Rush has against this, is that why should we pay for people to have sex whenever they want to? How is that legitimate, that we have to pay so someone else can be entitled to have sexual intercourse whenever it pleases then? I feel that's a coherent argument. Policy doesn't affect the small minority of women that do get raped or have anemia, policy affects the United States as a whole; we are really just paying for women to have sex and have no regards about it because the birth control would become free, since the vast majority of women, if they had not already started thinking about it, would eventually lead to sex for all. That's a trend we can note from Roe v. Wade, where the abortions from when it was allowed where a small minority used it at the beginning, and now we've killed over 50 million babies so far. Whether abortion is moral is an entirely different question (since we should seek to be moral in all our endeavours), but it really makes no sense for anyone to pay for your sexual exploits. For example, would you want millions of people to pay for a drunk's alcohol? He's never going to throw away the alcohol, it's essentially free for him, and he'll just use up all our money for his own pleasure (money that we should be using to A) spread moral values through shelters and such or B) using for pleasure on ourselves since it is reasonable to congratulate yourself after a hard earned day). Would you want millions of people to pay for someone's cocaine/weed/heroin? 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. 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.
That is the most stupid straw man I've ever seen. How does my wife taking birth control affect you? When you murder my family, I don't want you to be safe because you have directly harmed those close to me. Me taking birth control has 0 effect on the way that you choose to live your life. You example of pissing on the homeless man is technically incorrect too. If I pee on someone and they choose to retaliate by attacking and harming me, then I can sue that person for attacking me.
Your example of places where government doesn't exist is horrible because the reason that the government doesn't exist in most places where anarchy happens is because the previous government tried to extend too much control over the social aspects of peoples lives. This is literally the prequel to every government's downfall: trying too much control.
Why would the government's job not be to keep everyone safe? Are you suggesting that the government's job is to enforce some arbitrary moral code? The moral code of who? Morals change from one generation to another. I can see that you are a conservative, so debating about morals will do no good, but I have to say this: where did you get the information that more sex is medically bad for you? I have nothing to say about emotionally bad because I've seen plenty of women come into the psych department of our hospital after being raped, but I have yet to see a single person in the history of my experience in health care come in with an issue related to having too much sex. (STDs excluded because you can get an std from having sex even once).
You seem to have this idea that all people on the planet are responsible individuals, and that by denying coverage of birth control to women automatically will make women have less sex. This is completely not true. Women will have sex regardless of whether or not birth control is available to them because people are innately irresponsible beings. The only thing that birth control will do is allow them to do it safely; and frankly I don't want any more people coming into this world with the 7 billion we already have.
Also I said this in my previous post, but birth control is not just something to keep women from having children. Birth control serves many functions which help regulate a woman's reproductive system regulate the amount of hormones in her body. This is why birth control is covered and condoms are not. Condoms are used ONLY for sex. Birth control is medicine which helps someone be healthy.
|
i feel the funniest part about this is how the right is acting like obama himself is forcing millions of women to take contraceptives against their will or something. If women have the option to contraceptives but for some reason have a religious objection to it, then they don't have to take it. i fucking how the right is making such a big deal out of the thought that they can't force the rest of the country to abide by their bullshit religious rules.
|
I haven't read the full thread (sorry, GSL finals are on), but I feel like people are missing some information here. Here's a video about this issue that I found to be quite informative (if a bit ranty). Rachel Maddow does a pretty good job explaining this stuff. Obviously, she's extremely biased, but I find that she tends to do alright at being informative despite it. She starts talking about this issue specifically at about 5:24. If you're not interested in her ripping on the GOP, don't watch before 5:24 haha.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/46335268#46335268http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/46335268#46335268
|
Like how it seems like the same guys who try to circumvent the separation of state and church with intelligent design and defending the fact that kids have to talk about god every morning in school, now scream "SEPARATION" when it comes to something they dislike.
|
If you're broke and can't afford it, don't have sex.
|
On March 03 2012 18:53 Megatronn wrote:
If you're broke and can't afford it, don't have sex.
This point is extraordinarily stupid on a number of levels but I'll just quickly give one contradiction to it: birth control is used for a number of medical reasons, not only to prevent pregnancy.
|
On March 03 2012 17:27 Zerksys wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. On March 03 2012 05:14 Aeres wrote:
Why is this even up for discussion? It's not right to govern a woman's body in that manner just because one's personal beliefs conflict with how that woman chooses to live her life. It's ridiculous that religion plays such an integral role in how America determines policy.
Also, hi Ashley. :3 What's stupid is when people don't differentiate between religious freedom and making a law based on religion. Government forcing religious entities, private entities, to go against what they believe is wrong and goes against everything America was founded on. I hate it when debates break out on TL about health care because half the people on this forum who make posts like this have done absolutely no research about health insurance and the health field (I work in it so I've gotten a ton of exposure to this stuff). The reason that birth control is included in health care provisions by companies is because, not only does it prevent unwanted pregnancy, but it serves a whole lot of good functions as well like the promote a balance in hormones. The fact that the pill also has the side effect of giving a woman control of when she has kids is completely and utterly irrelevant to the topic. The only reason that this is a controversial issue is that the American far right has made it a goal to try to control every aspect of daily life that they do not find pleasing. Another part of it is that it's completely stupid for someone to be able to deny someone coverage of a particular portion of health care due to religious reasons. Say my religion was against the usage of antibiotics. Do I automatically get to deny all my employees access to antibiotics to satisfy my religious beliefs? Sigh... people who don't know what they're talking about irk me.
you are obviously not a med student or doctor
User was warned for this post
|
Another issue is that self-imposed chastity is mostly a degenerate form of cultural expression. With birth control available there is no good need for it and why should we take seriously the people that are against something that's a normal and healthy (and fun?) human activity?
And you can use the "why should I pay for it if I don't benefit from it" line for taxes too.
|
Russian Federation1401 Posts
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Also, about the medicine vs religious issues debate: You don't have to believe in Medicine in order to get cured.
|
so by conservative logic a miscarriage should result in prison? Because was it really an accident or did the life style of the woman contribute to the miscarriage? This is what could happen if a conservative agenda runs out of control.
|
On March 03 2012 12:03 BreakfastTea wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 11:30 RageBot wrote:On March 03 2012 11:04 Whitewing wrote:On March 03 2012 10:51 Moonster wrote:On March 03 2012 10:47 Whitewing wrote:On March 03 2012 10:40 Moonster wrote:On March 03 2012 10:21 henkel wrote:
not from the USA so not completely aware of the ongoing discussion, we only get to hear the extremely dumb shit like that Rush video. From the little I heard/read about this discussion i get the feeling that the "problem" is being hijacked to rant about abortion, birth control and freedom of religion. while i believe the discussion started because the catholic church gets something like 2 billion a year from the government and refuses to follow made agreements about health-care plans.
It's a fact that for some ailments a oral hormonal therapy is a good cure. What i got from it, is that the discussion is not about the pill as a birth control but as a medicine. The problem MOST people have, is that it's impossible to tell if a woman is taking it for a medical ailment or simply as a contraceptive. And Roe v. Wade makes it pretty hard to argue that it's ok to ask. Now here is where the problem arises, MANY women take the pill, for whatever reason. Lets say that 50% of the cost is covered by (private) health insurance, and this health insurance currently has 100 non-pill users and 100 pill users. Female 1 now pays 25/month instead of 50/month... but where does the other 25 come from? Certainly not from the profit margin of the insurance company. That's right, the money now comes from the non pill users. Now when I sign up for health insurance, I'm gambling against the insuring company. I pay them a certain amount of money that they deem will be what someone of my risk would have to pay for them to stay afloat financially. If I get sick, they have to cover those costs as described in the policy. That money comes from other people taking the same gamble. They basically spent more than they would have to cover their health costs while I spent less. With the pill, however, this "gamble" does not exist. A woman can decide she wants to take the pill and the insurance company cannot legally state they will only cover it if it is used for a purpose other than birth control. This foots that bill to the insurance company which in turn gets divided up among the other customers. Everyone's premium goes up while only a specific select few profit from it. No risk, no gamble, just a guaranteed price reduction. Many people such as myself who do not use such drugs find this unfair, thus we oppose it. As a note, I am 100% for insurance covering the pill if it's for a medical purpose. Ideally it should be sold full price without a prescription and covered by insurance only with a prescription (or some sort of similar system where some sort of differentiation exists). Is it relevant which one they are using it for? What difference does it make? Fact is, that it's just a sexist position in the first place: none of these people seem to have a problem with providing viagra. It is very relevant. One purpose is medical and another is recreational. I don't feel like being footed the bill for someone's lifestyle choices. It's not sexist at all. If the drug being discussed was male oriented, I'd be equally against it. That's not relevant either. It doesn't matter whether you think it's recreational or not. The entire purpose of the bill is to allow employers who are morally against sex for non-procreational purposes to refuse to provide insurance that covers contraceptives. The relevant question is: should that be allowed? The answer I have is that their position is hypocritical in the first place, so no. But why should the employer pay, anyway? If a woman uses contraceptives just so that she can have fun with her boyfriend or whatever, it seems fair for me to get free video games, so that I have fun. Alright, this entire thread is so stupid. Most women in the US take contraceptives of some kind. Of those women, very, very few are doing it "for recreation." Most women take contraceptives for legitimate medical reasons unrelated to becoming pregnant. For example, a girl I knew (a very conservative christian at that) took birth control, not because she was looking for "a good time," but because her physical reaction to her monthly period was so painful (vomiting, hemorrhaging, severe migraines, etc) that she needed pills to balance the extreme hormone swings. There are many women who react to this monthly occurrence in a very wide number of physical ways. i.e. a very clear case of misogyny at a cultural level in a male-dominated society, a society which also suffers from a bunch of right-winged religious extremists who would be perfectly happy seeing women in the US wear burkas and have their genitals mutilated. None of this ultimately has anything to do with insurance companies or whether or not a company should be forced to cover a particular medical issue. This is entirely about idiotic misogyny. edit: spelling
Prove the bolded with statistics.
The USA (and the west) aren't strictly mysognistic, women have more educational degrees than men, and I think form most of the work force, they get more governmant benefits, and while they have no-fault divorce, for which they can divorce of their husbands if they are just not happy, the husband (which maybe didn't want to divorce at all) will have to pay her ailmony and child support (while the mother does not need to even legally state and prove that the child support goes straight towards the children) that can go to up to 75% of his usual salary, and getting jailed if he can't pay.
There's inequality in society, between men and women, but in both directions.
Not to mention that the statement "male dominated society" is pointless, there have never been "female dominated societies" which flourished, women in the west live with conditions better than they have ever got, better than 50 years ago, 200 years ago, not to mention 500 and more, the only time, if I recall, that women had close to as many rights as men have has been, if I recall, in the Roman empire.
|
On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz...
Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks.
The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it?
|
Unlike other new that make me say "Americans... again" this is not so surprising to me, USA always had a "bad attitude" when it came to things like this, weren't they the only guys during WW1 that weren't encouraging there soldiers to use every contraception method possible but rather saying condoms are "bad" ?
But if the bill did not pass ( be it even by a narrow margin ) and it was not picked up by mass media ( the bill not the stupid incident ) i don't see it as discussion worthy since i do not believe that there would be anyone on tl ( or maybe just a minority or 1-5% ) that is against contraception/abortions in the first 3 months considering that most people here finished a high school if not college where you kinda get thought why there is nothing wrong with those things ( sex ed/psychology should generally teach abut the need for sex during your teens and later/ the reasons why contraception should be used and biology about the fact that a bunch of cells that are not even grouped into proper tissues yet and present no sign of a nervous system , from what i remember of 7th grade biology the "thing" that will become nervous tissues later isn't even there until about 70 days after conception.
|
First world country fighting against the empowerment of women. =S
|
On March 03 2012 23:15 Aterons_toss wrote:
Unlike other new that make me say "Americans... again" this is not so surprising to me, USA always had a "bad attitude" when it came to things like this, weren't they the only guys during WW1 that weren't encouraging there soldiers to use every contraception method possible but rather saying condoms are "bad" ?
But if the bill did not pass ( be it even by a narrow margin ) and it was not picked up by mass media ( the bill not the stupid incident ) i don't see it as discussion worthy since i do not believe that there would be anyone on tl ( or maybe just a minority or 1-5% ) that is against contraception/abortions in the first 3 months considering that most people here finished a high school if not college where you kinda get thought why there is nothing wrong with those things ( sex ed/psychology should generally teach abut the need for sex during your teens and later/ the reasons why contraception should be used and biology about the fact that a bunch of cells that are not even grouped into proper tissues yet and present no sign of a nervous system , from what i remember of 7th grade biology the "thing" that will become nervous tissues later isn't even there until about 70 days after conception.
So a quick google lookup tells me that the brain and nervous system start forming in the second month of pregnancy and are well formed by the end of the month. So I'm not quite sure about the 70 days statistic, but I agree with the general thrust.
I strongly disagree with abortion beyond the first trimester, but I question why pro-life politicians suddenly balk at legislation geared at significant federal investment into our adoption network.
We should have a law that requires the male to take responsibility of the child after birth. It takes two to tango, but one's always left with the bill.
|
Everytime a thread like this pops up I am astonished at how conservative and red-neckish the TL community can be.
1- It is obvious that almost no one of the "BAN CONTRACEPTION FROM INSURANCE" people really watched the video from Sandra Fluke explaining her point. She told the story of a friend who had an ovary problem that could be solved by using the pill, but her catholic university insurance plan wouldn't cover it for religious reasons. Honestly, how can you support such a stupidity.
2- Doctors recommended contraceptives to be included in health plans. And obviously, it is just much better for a country if women can use contraceptives. No unwanted babies during a time where the mother couldn't take care of it. It also seem this thread is full of sexism. "Just don't have sex if you can't afford pills". This is implying women only have sex with themselves.YOU, young boys, are having sex with girls. And be honest, you'd much prefer having sex with a girl that would use the pill. I feel these "LOL just don't have sex" people are young frustrated nerds that can't get a date and want girls to be abstinent because of it.
3- "Personal freedom". This is the new cool thing since a couple of years. People stopped asking themselves what is good for society and the majority of the population. They ask "Is this in conflict with my personal freedom?", and very soon accuse the government of trying to control their life. If you feel your peronal freedom is being violated because contraception is part of insurance plans, maybe you should reconsider your priorities.These people don't seem to give a shit about public health, environnement, public transportation. It's just them, and their so-called "personnal freedom".
"Freedom" is a word that has been stretched in so many directions in the last decade. War is freedom. Wearing gun is freedom. Calling people slut is freedom.
|
On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it?
Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012.
I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US.
Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control.
|
On March 03 2012 23:29 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 23:15 Aterons_toss wrote:
Unlike other new that make me say "Americans... again" this is not so surprising to me, USA always had a "bad attitude" when it came to things like this, weren't they the only guys during WW1 that weren't encouraging there soldiers to use every contraception method possible but rather saying condoms are "bad" ?
But if the bill did not pass ( be it even by a narrow margin ) and it was not picked up by mass media ( the bill not the stupid incident ) i don't see it as discussion worthy since i do not believe that there would be anyone on tl ( or maybe just a minority or 1-5% ) that is against contraception/abortions in the first 3 months considering that most people here finished a high school if not college where you kinda get thought why there is nothing wrong with those things ( sex ed/psychology should generally teach abut the need for sex during your teens and later/ the reasons why contraception should be used and biology about the fact that a bunch of cells that are not even grouped into proper tissues yet and present no sign of a nervous system , from what i remember of 7th grade biology the "thing" that will become nervous tissues later isn't even there until about 70 days after conception. So a quick google lookup tells me that the brain and nervous system start forming in the second month of pregnancy and are well formed by the end of the month. So I'm not quite sure about the 70 days statistic, but I would agree. I strongly disagree with abortion beyond the first trimester, but I question why pro-life politicians suddenly balk at legislation geared at significant federal investment into our adoption network. We should have a law that requires the male to take responsibility of the child after birth. It takes two to tango, but one's always left with the bill.
Oky so i did a quick wiki search, and idd the brain and some nervous tissue is formed by week 9 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development) so the info i remember was wrong 
Whoever they are only a "base" on which the actual organ develop and operate at a minimum, the part of "development" where you could say the brain is anything like a human being is week 26 - which is kinda what i was referring to ( the fetus doesn't mind getting "killed" in the first few months of existence ), still i am terribly sorry for the wrong info :/, i need to read on those things before posting with something i have in my memory from a few years ago.
Also... isn't there a law in the US that if the child is born the father has to pay some kind of compensation to the mother until he reaches maturity ? ( there was even a thread about this a few months ago i believe )
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
