I was unable to find a topic discussing the various bills that have been proposed for cutting back on access to birth control, and I think this is an important subject not just for females. One such bill was the Blunt Bill which aimed to allow employers to deny contraception coverage to women or any other health care service if they found it to be against their religion or if they morally objected to it. This bill did not pass but it was by a narrow margin.
This has lead to a heated debate about a woman's right to birth control in general, which to me is pretty scary. It has also lead to hateful comments by individuals such as Rush Limbaugh against a law student who spoke out against the Blunt Bill.
From NPR:
Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student who has become a "poster child" for Democrats since Republicans wouldn't let her testify at a House hearing about President Obama's policy on contraception, said today she was stunned and outraged Wednesday when conservative radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh called her a "slut" and "prostitute" on his nationally syndicated show.
"It's important to think about that in our society in certain sectors this is evidently still acceptable" discourse, she said on NBC-TV's The Today Show. "That's really problematic."
It seems pretty outrageous that this is even up for discussion, but even if it is I feel as though it should be discussed in a mature and civil way without resorting to name calling...
What does this mean for basic health care coverage in the United States, especially for women? Also, what does this say about the state of political discourse in our country?
Um. The bill wasn't passed? So what does Limbaugh calling some random relatively unimportant woman a slut mean for health care coverage in the US? I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean much.
I almost feel as if you're saying "nothing happened, woman was offended by someone saying something, what impact does this have on health care?"
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.
I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
It means that an entire political wing is basing its ideology upon the word of the Bible, which is highly disturbing from a practical perspective.
Also, I'm holding my breath until someone says, "Ron Paul 2012!", because a discussion like this is just going to dredge up everything.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
Wat. Just what. A fetus is not a child. Sex is a part of life.
Employers shouldn't care about either of these things, if they plan to have open applications.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations.
Oh, come on... that's a wildly sensationalist post and you know it. If you want to discuss the morality of abortion, try not to paint every woman as a slut and a murderer.
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.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
This isn't about abortion, its about birth control. Big difference.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations.
Oh, come on... that's a wildly sensationalist post and you know it. If you want to discuss the morality of abortion, try not to paint every woman as a slut and a murderer.
Women are not forced to have sex. I do not see why people don't have to live with consequences anymore.
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 05:16 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.
Where can you get free birth control from the government? Also- where do you draw that line at saying what you find morally wrong? Can you stop covering health care for homosexuals?
And additionally, I dont think that an employer who has absolutely no medical training should be telling you which medications are "right" and which are wrong.
And- so guys can be prescribed viagra from their religious institution and have all the sex they want, but women cant get essentially the female version of that? Pretty much makes no sense to tell people to just not have sex and that obviously is not how the world works
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations.
Oh, come on... that's a wildly sensationalist post and you know it. If you want to discuss the morality of abortion, try not to paint every woman as a slut and a murderer.
Women are not forced to have sex. I do not see why people don't have to live with consequences anymore.
Do you also reject medicine because getting sick should have consequences too? What about clothes, is refusing to freeze to death in cold climates by wearing things 'not living with consequences' too?
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations.
Oh, come on... that's a wildly sensationalist post and you know it. If you want to discuss the morality of abortion, try not to paint every woman as a slut and a murderer.
Women are not forced to have sex. I do not see why people don't have to live with consequences anymore.
Birth control isn't just about sex. For instance, one of the main treatments for Ovarian Cysts is hormonal contraception.
I'm surprised this is even something worth discussing. You can't just deny medicine to people just because it's against some religious belief. People are free to believe whatever they want, but they have no right to force it upon others.
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
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.
Where can you get free birth control from the government? Also- where do you draw that line at saying what you find morally wrong? Can you stop covering health care for homosexuals?
And additionally, I dont think that an employer who has absolutely no medical training should be telling you which medications are "right" and which are wrong.
And- so guys can be prescribed viagra from their religious institution and have all the sex they want, but women cant get essentially the female version of that? Pretty much makes no sense to tell people to just not have sex and that obviously is not how the world works
I feel weird when the word "guys" is attached to "viagra" because I associate "guys" with younger men (early 20s) and viagra with younger corpses (early 60s-70s).
Personally, I think contraceptives/birth control as a whole should be cheaper (not that condoms are expensive), people should just buy them with their own pay, and that viagra, and associated drugs for males and females, should not be covered by anything tax funded.
And lets not file all religions under the anti-contraceptive category. I believe we want to focus our disgust solely on the pope and his minions.
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Edit: As someone else earlier pointed out, birth control really isn't all about sex. One of the girls I used to date had periods that would black her out. BC really helped her with that.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
You are so dumb I am astonished you even managed to log into a forum to post this.
This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue concerns if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention the much more severe and frequent insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
I can respect that argument, but what I wonder is if most women are in fact using some sort of birth control and it has essential health benefits, then isnt it worth the very small if not inconsequential increase in price?
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
The first amendment is not "the freedom of speech the end". Please don't over simplify it like that. Hell, the religion part and the freedom of speech part are two entirely different rights granted by the first amendment.
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
I can respect that argument, but what I wonder is if most women are in fact using some sort of birth control and it has essential health benefits, then isnt it worth the very small if not inconsequential increase in price?
Just want to mention that from an insurance perspective, the provision of contraception is usually beneficial. The cost of provision of contraception is generally much lower than the additional insurance claims made that can be prevented contraception.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
I think Catholics get hit the hardest in terms of being forced to financially support something that violates their moral beliefs. I don't wish to attempt to defend this belief but I respect their right to adhere to it.
The thing I most dislike is the move to mandate insurance coverage of a relatively inexpensive product. Many contraceptives are inexpensive and widely available... I don't see how requiring insurance companies will do anything but hurt competition and eventually drive up total cost. You don't see dental insurance covering your everyday toothpaste...
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
The first amendment is not "the freedom of speech the end". Please don't over simplify it like that. Hell, the religion part and the freedom of speech part are two entirely different rights granted by the first amendment.
I wasn't? I'm saying that it is more complicated than freedom of speech the end. Likewise exercising a religion is not just 'all religions can do anything they want'.
If you buy that it's legal to mandate companies to provide health insurance, then I don't see how you can say it's illegal to dictate the specifics.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
That is like saying employers shouldn't have to hire black people or women if they don't want to, because it is their company.
There are things called laws, and companies are subject to them, because there is this other thing called government. If you don't like the laws, try to get them changed or gtfo or stfu. That's how it goes.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations.
Oh, come on... that's a wildly sensationalist post and you know it. If you want to discuss the morality of abortion, try not to paint every woman as a slut and a murderer.
Women are not forced to have sex. I do not see why people don't have to live with consequences anymore.
Birth control isn't just about sex. For instance, one of the main treatments for Ovarian Cysts is hormonal contraception.
I'm surprised this is even something worth discussing. You can't just deny medicine to people just because it's against some religious belief. People are free to believe whatever they want, but they have no right to force it upon others.
Yes i'm sure the vast majority sold birth control in the US is just for that.. If it's being used as treatment for a disease that is totally different from someone using it recreationally and if it is as main as you say it is health insurance companies would probably cover it anyway.
On March 03 2012 05:31 OhNeverMind wrote: I think Catholics get hit the hardest in terms of being forced to financially support something that violates their moral beliefs. I don't wish to attempt to defend this belief but I respect their right to adhere to it.
The thing I most dislike is the move to mandate insurance coverage of a relatively inexpensive product. Many contraceptives are inexpensive and widely available... I don't see how requiring insurance companies will do anything but hurt competition and eventually drive up total cost. You don't see dental insurance covering your everyday toothpaste...
It really depends on the type of birth control that you are talking about. Condoms are inexpensive yes, but without insurance it would not really be possible for someone on a low income or even just a moderate income to buy oral hormonal contraception.
I have seen this news in recent headlines. I believe it is wrong for government to allow religion or "morals" to allow whether or not a company can provide a certain type of healthcare. Perhaps if changed it so it only effects religious institutions then people would have a choice of working or attending these institutions or secular ones. The separation of church and state was meant not only to keep the government out of religion but also to keep religion out of the government.
The OP sucks. It doesn't even mention the issue. Nobody is forcing anybody to take or not take birth control, the whole argument is about whether or not people who don't want contraception should have to pay for it anyway. If the employer offers a plan that includes contraception and one that does not, the one without will be cheaper. However, if the employer must offer only the plan with contraception, those who don't use it will essentially be throwing away money.
It's like if a health plan mandated that an employer must provide glasses to all employees. Those with fine eyes are getting kind of screwed, as they get no use out of what they are forced to pay for.
Honestly, the OP is taking shots at the Right and the religious as if they were trying to deny women birth control, when that's not at all what's going on here.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
I can respect that argument, but what I wonder is if most women are in fact using some sort of birth control and it has essential health benefits, then isnt it worth the very small if not inconsequential increase in price?
With women currently paying for birth control pills the cost is $15-$50 month. Once women cannot choose to be economical, insurance companies will need to charge enough make a profit even after many women choose the move convenient and expensive options. This means the total cost could exceed $50/month which is not inconsequential.
The bill in question would not have affected most women, so they would have been forced to pay for expensive contraception whether they wanted it or not. It would have only affected religious institutions where the religion was morally against birth control.
I personally think being morally against birth control is silly at best and potentially dangerous, but I am not going to force someone to pay for that which they do not want.
You could substitute the word birth control with "cancer medication" or "insulin" in the above video and make the same argument. Should the government be telling your employer to pay for your heart medication if you are overweight? If you want to discuss the legitimacy of government run health care that is a different story. Im talking about the cherry picking of female contraception and that alone.
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
The first amendment is not "the freedom of speech the end". Please don't over simplify it like that. Hell, the religion part and the freedom of speech part are two entirely different rights granted by the first amendment.
I wasn't? I'm saying that it is more complicated than freedom of speech the end. Likewise exercising a religion is not just 'all religions can do anything they want'.
The free exercise clause of the first amendment has case law stating that you can't restrict religions ("unduly burden the practice of religion") without "compelling interest", that is, strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review. Comparing suicide cults and Catholics because they don't like condoms is silly (ritual human sacrifice, really?).
If Catholics claim that it is against their religion to use or provide contraceptives to others, you, and everyone else, needs to listen to why, and there needs to be judicial review into the case if they are forced to pay for contraceptives of others. That's a part of the first amendment, whether you or I like it.
On March 03 2012 05:31 OhNeverMind wrote: I think Catholics get hit the hardest in terms of being forced to financially support something that violates their moral beliefs. I don't wish to attempt to defend this belief but I respect their right to adhere to it.
The thing I most dislike is the move to mandate insurance coverage of a relatively inexpensive product. Many contraceptives are inexpensive and widely available... I don't see how requiring insurance companies will do anything but hurt competition and eventually drive up total cost. You don't see dental insurance covering your everyday toothpaste...
It really depends on the type of birth control that you are talking about. Condoms are inexpensive yes, but without insurance it would not really be possible for someone on a low income or even just a moderate income to buy oral hormonal contraception.
Condoms and the pill are both used as birth control, but some people can't pay for the more expensive one so lets let insurance premiums go up on everyone?
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.
Ahh yes what America was founded on argument. Please do tell what was America founded on. I believe it was on not wanting to pay higher taxes for a war that the British had to go into because of the American colonists expansions into the French territories. But then again it's been awhile since I took US history so it's possible that I'm forgetting that call to arms sounded by our founding fathers to protect the rights of a minority religious organization to limit women access to essential healthcare everywhere.
Of course the beggest problem with this whole limiting healthcare coverage based on what one believes to be "morally" right is the fact that it goes far beyond contraceptives. Jehova's witnesses wouldn't cover blood transfusion and Christian Scientists wouldn't cover anything whatsoever besides prayer. I mean where do you draw the line?
On March 03 2012 05:28 mastergriggy wrote: I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Edit: As someone else earlier pointed out, birth control really isn't all about sex. One of the girls I used to date had periods that would black her out. BC really helped her with that.
Cuz the big book o' righteousness said so. Also, Republicans are uneducated(just in general, no offense intended to any on the forum) and believe that everything resolves itself without the government.
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
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.
Ahh yes what America was founded on argument. Please do tell what was America founded on. I believe it was on not wanting to pay higher taxes for a war that the British had to go into because of the American colonists expansions into the French territories. But then again it's been awhile since I took US history so it's possible that I'm forgetting that call to arms sounded by our founding fathers to protect the rights of a minority religious organization to limit women access to essential healthcare everywhere.
Of course the beggest problem with this whole limiting healthcare coverage based on what one believes to be "morally" right is the fact that it goes far beyond contraceptives. Jehova's witnesses wouldn't cover blood transfusion and Christian Scientists wouldn't cover anything whatsoever besides prayer. I mean where do you draw the line?
There is no line. Nobody should be forced to cover any health care services. If employees don't like it, they won't work for the employer.
The US always gives me such mixed feelings. On one hand it's the great country who put a man on the moon and improved science so much. But it also has a highly religious part who are so influential it's scary. If you're aiming to be a politician better not tell anyone you're an atheist or you can forget about your career.
As an outsider it seems most people on the east and west coast are very broad minded and liberal, but some states in the center... it just feels that too many weird cults and religious groups fled there when Europe had enough of them back in the day.
To come up up with shit like this in this time and age :/
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
I can respect that argument, but what I wonder is if most women are in fact using some sort of birth control and it has essential health benefits, then isnt it worth the very small if not inconsequential increase in price?
With women currently paying for birth control pills the cost is $15-$50 month. Once women cannot choose to be economical, insurance companies will need to charge enough make a profit even after many women choose the move convenient and expensive options. This means the total cost could exceed $50/month which is not inconsequential.
The bill in question would not have affected most women, so they would have been forced to pay for expensive contraception whether they wanted it or not. It would have only affected religious institutions where the religion was morally against birth control.
I personally think being morally against birth control is silly at best and potentially dangerous, but I am not going to force someone to pay for that which they do not want.
The one bit of news I read a while back was that religious organizations were complaining about being forced to buy plans that contained conception and birth control and the such, in theory paying for extra for coverage they objected to on religious basis. Obama offered a "compromise" where religious organizations were not forced into buying the coverage, but health insurance organizations had to offer "free" coverage, in theory making coverage of the objectionable service zero cost. Is that what this bill is about?
On March 03 2012 05:28 mastergriggy wrote: I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Edit: As someone else earlier pointed out, birth control really isn't all about sex. One of the girls I used to date had periods that would black her out. BC really helped her with that.
Cuz the big book o' righteousness said so. Also, Republicans are uneducated(just in general, no offense intended to any on the forum) and believe that everything resolves itself without the government.
Do you know who Milton Friedman is? By your logic, he's a very uneducated man.
On March 03 2012 05:44 Jibba wrote: I'm past the abortion debate, we need to start focusing on legalizing retroactive abortions. 61 would be a good cutoff.
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.
Ahh yes what America was founded on argument. Please do tell what was America founded on. I believe it was on not wanting to pay higher taxes for a war that the British had to go into because of the American colonists expansions into the French territories. But then again it's been awhile since I took US history so it's possible that I'm forgetting that call to arms sounded by our founding fathers to protect the rights of a minority religious organization to limit women access to essential healthcare everywhere.
Of course the beggest problem with this whole limiting healthcare coverage based on what one believes to be "morally" right is the fact that it goes far beyond contraceptives. Jehova's witnesses wouldn't cover blood transfusion and Christian Scientists wouldn't cover anything whatsoever besides prayer. I mean where do you draw the line?
There is no line. Nobody should be forced to cover any health care services. If employees don't like it, they won't work for the employer.
So then what would be the point of health insurance?
On March 03 2012 05:45 Zandar wrote: The US always gives me such mixed feelings. On one hand it's the great country who put a man on the moon and improved science so much. But it also has a highly religious part who are so influential it's scary. If you're aiming to be a politician better not tell anyone you're an atheist or you can forget about your career.
As an outsider it seems most people on the east and west coast are very broad minded and liberal, but some states in the center... it just feels that too many weird cults and religious groups fled there when Europe had enough of them back in the day.
To come up up with shit like this in this time and age :/
Still happy to see the bill didn't pass though
I'm an atheist. I can't stand religious interference in politics. But come on, man.
Europe hadn't "had enough" of them...The people who fled wanted religious freedom. They weren't leaving secular governments behind in Europe. They were leaving religious institutions so they could practice their religion freely.
You know that the vast majority of European history is the history of religious influenced war? And you know those "weird cults" that fled and developed the American state ended up coming back and saving Europe, including the Netherlands, from Hitler?
Again, as an atheist, I can't stand religious politics in america. But don't dump on the whole country. There's a lot of good stuff here.
On March 03 2012 05:39 meadbert wrote: With women currently paying for birth control pills the cost is $15-$50 month. Once women cannot choose to be economical, insurance companies will need to charge enough make a profit even after many women choose the move convenient and expensive options. This means the total cost could exceed $50/month which is not inconsequential.
The bill in question would not have affected most women, so they would have been forced to pay for expensive contraception whether they wanted it or not. It would have only affected religious institutions where the religion was morally against birth control.
I personally think being morally against birth control is silly at best and potentially dangerous, but I am not going to force someone to pay for that which they do not want.
If it doesn't raise premiums then employers have an active interest in getting their employees on these plans - if money is all that they cared about. I suppose they'd be actively pressing their male employees to get vasectomies and female employees to get their fallopian tubes tied and all other methods of population control. Clearly that is not the case with religious organizations.
All off this begs the question: Why in the world are the employers involved in their employee's health decisions?
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
The first amendment is not "the freedom of speech the end". Please don't over simplify it like that. Hell, the religion part and the freedom of speech part are two entirely different rights granted by the first amendment.
I wasn't? I'm saying that it is more complicated than freedom of speech the end. Likewise exercising a religion is not just 'all religions can do anything they want'.
The free exercise clause of the first amendment has case law stating that you can't restrict religions ("unduly burden the practice of religion") without "compelling interest", that is, strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review. Comparing suicide cults and Catholics because they don't like condoms is silly (ritual human sacrifice, really?).
If Catholics claim that it is against their religion to use or provide contraceptives to others, you, and everyone else, needs to listen to why, and there needs to be judicial review into the case if they are forced to pay for contraceptives of others. That's a part of the first amendment, whether you or I like it.
So it's not necessarily unconstitutional, it's something that requires strict scrutiny and the highest level of judicial review. Interesting and thanks for the insight, but again not something you can just call unconstitutional and have any legitimacy unless you're part of the highest judicial levels.
Not to mention being required to provide birth control is likely stretching the use of "unduly burden the practice of religion" since anyone practicing the religion is free to not take birth control.
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.
Ahh yes what America was founded on argument. Please do tell what was America founded on. I believe it was on not wanting to pay higher taxes for a war that the British had to go into because of the American colonists expansions into the French territories. But then again it's been awhile since I took US history so it's possible that I'm forgetting that call to arms sounded by our founding fathers to protect the rights of a minority religious organization to limit women access to essential healthcare everywhere.
Of course the beggest problem with this whole limiting healthcare coverage based on what one believes to be "morally" right is the fact that it goes far beyond contraceptives. Jehova's witnesses wouldn't cover blood transfusion and Christian Scientists wouldn't cover anything whatsoever besides prayer. I mean where do you draw the line?
There is no line. Nobody should be forced to cover any health care services. If employees don't like it, they won't work for the employer.
So then what would be the point of health insurance?
I'm not saying that insurance companies shouldn't be forced to cover things they have agreed to cover. I'm saying employers should be able to offer/not offer whatever health plan/insurance they want to their employees.
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
The first amendment is not "the freedom of speech the end". Please don't over simplify it like that. Hell, the religion part and the freedom of speech part are two entirely different rights granted by the first amendment.
I wasn't? I'm saying that it is more complicated than freedom of speech the end. Likewise exercising a religion is not just 'all religions can do anything they want'.
The free exercise clause of the first amendment has case law stating that you can't restrict religions ("unduly burden the practice of religion") without "compelling interest", that is, strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review. Comparing suicide cults and Catholics because they don't like condoms is silly (ritual human sacrifice, really?).
If Catholics claim that it is against their religion to use or provide contraceptives to others, you, and everyone else, needs to listen to why, and there needs to be judicial review into the case if they are forced to pay for contraceptives of others. That's a part of the first amendment, whether you or I like it.
So it's not necessarily unconstitutional, it's something that requires strict scrutiny and the highest level of judicial review. Interesting and thanks for the insight, but again not something you can just call unconstitutional and have any legitimacy unless you're part of the highest judicial levels.
Not to mention being required to provide birth control is likely stretching the use of "unduly burden the practice of religion" since anyone practicing the religion is free to not take birth control.
So we agree then, any law forcing someone to do or support something which their religion, whatever it may be, is against the first amendment in accordance to the current interpretations, and any law regarding such things need to be individually picked out by the supreme court and allowed on a law-by-law basis, in much the same way any law forcing an atheist to subscribe to or support a religion would have to be implemented.
besides rape, no abortion period. ^^my opinion might not be yours.
Though companies can't say the supply health care coverage(considering tax returns for the company are had for providing healthcare) if they deny part of health care. And really religion and belief of morally wrong? Thats bullshit.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
This is so fucking insulting, and you clearly know nothing about women.
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
The first amendment is not "the freedom of speech the end". Please don't over simplify it like that. Hell, the religion part and the freedom of speech part are two entirely different rights granted by the first amendment.
I wasn't? I'm saying that it is more complicated than freedom of speech the end. Likewise exercising a religion is not just 'all religions can do anything they want'.
The free exercise clause of the first amendment has case law stating that you can't restrict religions ("unduly burden the practice of religion") without "compelling interest", that is, strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review. Comparing suicide cults and Catholics because they don't like condoms is silly (ritual human sacrifice, really?).
If Catholics claim that it is against their religion to use or provide contraceptives to others, you, and everyone else, needs to listen to why, and there needs to be judicial review into the case if they are forced to pay for contraceptives of others. That's a part of the first amendment, whether you or I like it.
So it's not necessarily unconstitutional, it's something that requires strict scrutiny and the highest level of judicial review. Interesting and thanks for the insight, but again not something you can just call unconstitutional and have any legitimacy unless you're part of the highest judicial levels.
Not to mention being required to provide birth control is likely stretching the use of "unduly burden the practice of religion" since anyone practicing the religion is free to not take birth control.
So we agree then, any law forcing someone to do or support something which their religion, whatever it may be, is against the first amendment in accordance to the current interpretations, and any law regarding such things need to be individually picked out by the supreme court and allowed on a law-by-law basis.
I'm glad we understand the first amendment now.
Yes, but I still don't see how this applies to the issue at hand. If I cared at all I'd be more than happy to hear the supreme court weigh in though their decisions have seemed questionable as of late.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
This is so fucking insulting, and you clearly know nothing about women.
You are an elected representative of all women, I take it?
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.
Ahh yes what America was founded on argument. Please do tell what was America founded on. I believe it was on not wanting to pay higher taxes for a war that the British had to go into because of the American colonists expansions into the French territories. But then again it's been awhile since I took US history so it's possible that I'm forgetting that call to arms sounded by our founding fathers to protect the rights of a minority religious organization to limit women access to essential healthcare everywhere.
Of course the beggest problem with this whole limiting healthcare coverage based on what one believes to be "morally" right is the fact that it goes far beyond contraceptives. Jehova's witnesses wouldn't cover blood transfusion and Christian Scientists wouldn't cover anything whatsoever besides prayer. I mean where do you draw the line?
There is no line. Nobody should be forced to cover any health care services. If employees don't like it, they won't work for the employer.
So then what would be the point of health insurance?
I'm not saying that insurance companies shouldn't be forced to cover things they have agreed to cover.
On March 03 2012 05:28 mastergriggy wrote: I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Edit: As someone else earlier pointed out, birth control really isn't all about sex. One of the girls I used to date had periods that would black her out. BC really helped her with that.
Cuz the big book o' righteousness said so. Also, Republicans are uneducated(just in general, no offense intended to any on the forum) and believe that everything resolves itself without the government.
Do you know who Milton Friedman is? By your logic, he's a very uneducated man.
On March 03 2012 05:44 Jibba wrote: I'm past the abortion debate, we need to start focusing on legalizing retroactive abortions. 61 would be a good cutoff.
I went to go report that post but then....
He was speaking generally, and you rebuked with anecdotal evidence. Very poor argument.
On March 03 2012 05:45 Zandar wrote: The US always gives me such mixed feelings. On one hand it's the great country who put a man on the moon and improved science so much. But it also has a highly religious part who are so influential it's scary. If you're aiming to be a politician better not tell anyone you're an atheist or you can forget about your career.
As an outsider it seems most people on the east and west coast are very broad minded and liberal, but some states in the center... it just feels that too many weird cults and religious groups fled there when Europe had enough of them back in the day.
To come up up with shit like this in this time and age :/
Still happy to see the bill didn't pass though
Do you even know what the bill is about or did you just read the OP and kind of assume that the bill was against contraception in some general way? The bill was about trying to reverse Obama's plans to force employers to offer insurance including contraception. There are plenty of secular reasons why this is insane. See the video I posted on page 2.
On March 03 2012 05:28 mastergriggy wrote: I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Edit: As someone else earlier pointed out, birth control really isn't all about sex. One of the girls I used to date had periods that would black her out. BC really helped her with that.
Cuz the big book o' righteousness said so. Also, Republicans are uneducated(just in general, no offense intended to any on the forum) and believe that everything resolves itself without the government.
Do you know who Milton Friedman is? By your logic, he's a very uneducated man.
On March 03 2012 05:44 Jibba wrote: I'm past the abortion debate, we need to start focusing on legalizing retroactive abortions. 61 would be a good cutoff.
I went to go report that post but then....
He was speaking generally, and you rebuked with anecdotal evidence. Very poor argument.
He gave his opinion (read: irrelevant in all cases, always), and I provided him the name of one of the most well known lasseiz-faire capitalists to ever exist which provided an example of a direct contradiction to his opinion.
On March 03 2012 06:05 Recognizable wrote: Reading this stuff feels like the United States is like a century behind on matters like these.
The real issue here is what this bill is in response to which is an attempted vote grab by Obama who is trying to make it seem like women are going to get free contraception by forcing employers to offer insurance plans that include contraception.
It's sad that so many people can't take the 5 minutes necessary to educate themselves before bashing on this bill as some religious, anti-contraception bill.
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
Edit: Also that article really isnt worth reading, I'll save you the trouble. Having actually listened to the testimony from the Georgetown law student I can assure you that it was anything but "absurd."
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
This is so fucking insulting, and you clearly know nothing about women.
You are an elected representative of all women, I take it?
Clearly.
It's an absurd claim. 99% of women, (in the states) use or have used birth control. To assert that a woman currently not using birth control would be "annoyed" that another woman was being covered for something she was likely using herself not a few months ago is ridiculous.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Honestly, I haven't seen a single compelling argument from anyone on the left as to why the government has to play for contraception.
I see arguments about how important contraception is, which is fine, however it doesn't even address the point. It's not THAT expensive and it's not like it's vital for life. If you have to wait till your next paycheck for your pills, either keep it in your pants or know what might happen, it's not that hard.
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
The right for me to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin.
That said, when contraception is a part of the constitutional rights, that is, the rights which are above all other rights, it will gain more power over religious rights. But the constitutional right of religion will always trump* the generic right to use contraception. As will any constitutional right beat any law-borne right.
It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
I am confused when did we start talking about abortion? I thought this was just birth control. So the idea that there could possibly be a child because people have sex but due to birth control probably they probably won't have a child counts as killing a child? If I get kicked in the groin enough times (kick boxing, tae kwon do it happens) and I can't have children is the person the kicked me a murderer?
As for the employers should be able to deny heath care because it is their company. So what if your boss is against blood transfusions and therefore you can be fired from your job because you have one?
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 don't know 100% what it is like now in the states as I only lived there for a year and am Canadian but don't people have to pay for heath care coverage or it is part of your job? So in a sense it is kind of part of your salary so you are paying for it. If you want to recieve tax money (and also recieve huge tax breaks like the church does) though everyone should have to play by the same rules.
Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion if you choose to not be a part of a one and if you think it is unfair that the government is telling religious groups to provide birth control if the person wants it then it is unfair for the the church to say don't have sex. The government isn't making people take birth control. They are just saying if you want to they want it to be availiable for you.
TLDR: If your company shouldn't dictate what coverage you get based on the bosses beliefs. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. You are not forced to take birth control... but it is there if you want to.
This is a great bill, now it will cost employers more money to hire women to give them free contraception so now men have the advantage in being hired.
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
The right for me to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin.
That said, when contraception is a part of the constitutional rights, that is, the rights which are above all other rights, it will gain more power over religious rights. But the constitutional right of religion will always trump* the generic right to use contraception. As will any constitutional right beat any law-borne right.
edit for nonsensical word.
Isn't that taking a big leap? It's not that people must use contraceptives. It's that employers must provide health care coverage to employees without restricting contraceptive coverage.
Isn't Viagra is covered by most of these health care providers. A single man can get Viagra which is equally against the religion, where's that outcry. Or what about transplants? Can a religion deny that coverage? Can any Scientology organization deny drug coverage to their employees because they don't believe in drugs? There's clearly a line somewhere.
On March 03 2012 06:10 deth2munkies wrote: I see arguments about how important contraception is, which is fine, however it doesn't even address the point. It's not THAT expensive and it's not like it's vital for life. If you have to wait till your next paycheck for your pills, either keep it in your pants or know what might happen, it's not that hard.
It actually kind of is.
Doesn't look like much to some people, but to poor women, that really adds up. Read a few of the stories here. People don't understand how important controlling your reproductive cycle is to one's autonomy, and how costly an unwanted pregnancy can be.
On March 03 2012 06:10 deth2munkies wrote: Honestly, I haven't seen a single compelling argument from anyone on the left as to why the government has to play for contraception.
I see arguments about how important contraception is, which is fine, however it doesn't even address the point. It's not THAT expensive and it's not like it's vital for life. If you have to wait till your next paycheck for your pills, either keep it in your pants or know what might happen, it's not that hard.
Youd like to think that as a society we can move past this patriarchal idea that women should just learn some self control and "keep it in their pants" because to me this is unreasonably offensive. We live in a time when birth control that is actually functional exists which has allowed women to control their reproduction and have a better chance at a successful career. Just telling someone not to do something has never worked, e.g. prohibition. Telling people not to have sex doesnt work, that is why areas with abstinence only sex ed programs have higher teen pregnancy rates.
And as for the expense, birth control in the form of hormone pills is as expensive as any other medication if it is not insured. It is not reasonable to fund on your own if you are not very wealthy
The issue for me is that I can get condoms anywhere, women need a prescription to get most of their contraceptives. Which means they need to go through an extremely expensive medical system. The problem is our dependency on health insurance provided by an employer.
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
Oh, liberatians vehemently oppose the entirety of the monstrosity that is Obama-care. The Cathollic church have made no attempt to encroach on your personal liberty, they are merely refusing to pay for this part of it.
True, such comments are nearly invariably unproductive, but if they don't appear once in a while that means free speach is restricted.
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
The right for me to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin.
That said, when contraception is a part of the constitutional rights, that is, the rights which are above all other rights, it will gain more power over religious rights. But the constitutional right of religion will always trump* the generic right to use contraception. As will any constitutional right beat any law-borne right.
edit for nonsensical word.
Except that nobody here is arguing to do anything like ban contraception. Everyone has a right to use contraception. The issue is that no one has the right to have contraception given to them for free, just as nobody has the obligation to provide anyone else with contraception unless decided by voluntarily signed contract.
This is the second time I'm posting this but people really need to watch it as it covers most of the bases of this issue. It also makes it clear that you don't need to be religious or against contraception to be against Obama forcing employers to offer plans including contraception. The main issue is not, whether Catholics should be forced to provide contraception. The real issue that needs to be talked about is if the government has the right to force anyone to provide contraception. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U73xKgbXh68
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
On March 03 2012 06:13 acie wrote: This is a great bill, now it will cost employers more money to hire women to give them free contraception so now men have the advantage in being hired.
I know you're being facetious, but I'll return in kind.
Men benefit from broader access to birth control too by the way. It's not like this *only* benefits women. Wouldn't you like to know that your wife/girlfriend has quality access to affordable birth control?
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
Oh, liberatians vehemently oppose the entirety of the monstrosity that is Obama-care. The Cathollic church have made no attempt to encroach on your personal liberty, they are merely refusing to pay for this part of it.
True, such comments are nearly invariably unproductive, but if they don't appear once in a while that means free speach is restricted.
This isnt just talking about churches funding birth control its "religious institutions" as a whole, which include a lot of colleges/universities/hospitals. That is a lot of potential employers
Also, the argument being made by some individuals is that you can just choose not to be employed by one of these institutions, or choose not to get your education from one of these places. But should a female be forced to make employment or schooling decisions based on the potential access to medication?
On March 03 2012 06:13 acie wrote: This is a great bill, now it will cost employers more money to hire women to give them free contraception so now men have the advantage in being hired.
What? I am sure that is never going to come up and if it does that is clearly a terrible company. Also there are bigger issues in employment equality than this.
I am a 23 year old man and I think I know what is best for me right now. Everyone will make mistakes but such is life.
Therefore I believe that a woman will know what is right for her.
If only I could find the comic that was a picture of a man picketing outside the whitehouse saying "Keep your hands off of my health care!" and then in the next slide it shows a woman walking into an abortion clinic and the same man is there again saying "And put them on hers!"
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
I was thinking that birth control was TOO affordable, I'm glad the government has decided to subsidize the industry to drive prices up. A since this bill only covers employed women, unemployed women will have no chance at being able to afford birth control, now we get to spread our seed to all the homeless bitches bros!
On March 03 2012 06:13 acie wrote: This is a great bill, now it will cost employers more money to hire women to give them free contraception so now men have the advantage in being hired.
What? I am sure that is never going to come up and if it does that is clearly a terrible company. Also there are bigger issues in employment equality than this.
I am a 23 year old man and I think I know what is best for me right now. Everyone will make mistakes but such is life.
Therefore I believe that a woman will know what is right for her.
Therefore, employer offered insurance should be forced to include contraception?
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
No, the insurance wouldn't pay for your food or sunscreen. You could avoid crashes by being a perfect driver, but insurance still pays for crashes.
Health "insurance" has been turned into part insurance part subscription for regular services by adding things like contraception to it; that much is undeniable. Whether you think that is good or not is another deal.
I'd vote to have the pill covered if I got Viagra and condoms out of the deal. Safe sex is important for men's health!
On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote: It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses.
The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked.
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
Oh, liberatians vehemently oppose the entirety of the monstrosity that is Obama-care. The Cathollic church have made no attempt to encroach on your personal liberty, they are merely refusing to pay for this part of it.
True, such comments are nearly invariably unproductive, but if they don't appear once in a while that means free speach is restricted.
This isnt just talking about churches funding birth control its "religious institutions" as a whole, which include a lot of colleges/universities/hospitals. That is a lot of potential employers
Also, the argument being made by some individuals is that you can just choose not to be employed by one of these institutions, or choose not to get your education from one of these places. But should a female be forced to make employment or schooling decisions based on the potential access to medication?
Except that birth control is a low and chosen cost. Insurance is about low likelihood, high cost things. It makes zero sense to include birth control with insurance at all.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote: It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses.
The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked.
You have the constitution in one hand, and you're looking at what in our country in unconstitutional.
And THIS is what you come up with? Mandating insurance-coverage for birth control? No. I think you know that's BS. This issue didn't come up because of its audacious unconstitutionality. It came up because sex and religion.
The constitution isn't to be revered. The Second Amendment, for example, sucks. It doesn't define firearms or militias. By the Second Amendment's possible interpretations, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead.
And maybe you should go take some classes on critical thinking, and maybe one on discourse so you can learn to close your arguments without resorting to insults like this one. We've reinterpreted the constitution many times throughout our history, often for the better. And if our government wants to do something that bends against your interpretation of the constitution, but would be of benefit to our country, then guess whose side I'm on? Pragmatism>>>Ideology.
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
Oh, liberatians vehemently oppose the entirety of the monstrosity that is Obama-care. The Cathollic church have made no attempt to encroach on your personal liberty, they are merely refusing to pay for this part of it.
True, such comments are nearly invariably unproductive, but if they don't appear once in a while that means free speach is restricted.
This isnt just talking about churches funding birth control its "religious institutions" as a whole, which include a lot of colleges/universities/hospitals. That is a lot of potential employers
Also, the argument being made by some individuals is that you can just choose not to be employed by one of these institutions, or choose not to get your education from one of these places. But should a female be forced to make employment or schooling decisions based on the potential access to medication?
Except that birth control is a low and chosen cost. Insurance is about low likelihood, high cost things. It makes zero sense to include birth control with insurance at all.
How does that make any sense at all? I personally need to take birth control for medical reasons beyond just preventing pregnancy, and I would be completely unable to afford it if it wasnt covered, and would probably be in trouble and would need expensive surgery that would cause the insurance companies more.
without a direct quote from rush i won't pass judgement on what he said or didn't say. if he straight up called her a slut, than ok, that's wrong. however, this woman is clearly being untruthful about a debate that, as far as i know, she has no place being in (and don't start with this "she's a woman!" stuff either). is she a doctor? is she an insurance provider? is she a religious leader? does she have any expertise whatsoever on the subject? or does she have a sensationalist story that tries to play on our emotions instead of addressing the actual issue in a rational manner? my bet goes with it being the latter.
and the fact that i am reading a comment right now basically saying:
"why do republicans want to ban birth control?"
is proof that both sides of the aisle are creating strawmen here and using sensationalism to get their point across. no prominent republican has ever suggested banning birth control, or limiting women's access to it, or preventing women from getting it or preventing people from selling it. don't be ridiculous.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
Except that heart surgery, broken bones, etc. are high cost, low likelihood things. That is the point of insurance, not providing everything necessary to a particular need.
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
Oh, liberatians vehemently oppose the entirety of the monstrosity that is Obama-care. The Cathollic church have made no attempt to encroach on your personal liberty, they are merely refusing to pay for this part of it.
True, such comments are nearly invariably unproductive, but if they don't appear once in a while that means free speach is restricted.
This isnt just talking about churches funding birth control its "religious institutions" as a whole, which include a lot of colleges/universities/hospitals. That is a lot of potential employers
Also, the argument being made by some individuals is that you can just choose not to be employed by one of these institutions, or choose not to get your education from one of these places. But should a female be forced to make employment or schooling decisions based on the potential access to medication?
I'll take your word for it, but the scale of the effects are irrelvant to my argument. Which is, it is a poor - not to mention immoral - idea to expand the grasp of government for Obama-care in general and for contraceptives in particular (which is a minor if not trivial part of it anyway).
On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote: It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses.
The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked.
You have the constitution in one hand, and you're looking at what in our country in unconstitutional.
And THIS is what you come up with? Mandating insurance-coverage for birth control?
The constitution isn't to be revered. The Second Amendment, for example, sucks. It doesn't define firearms or militias. By the Second Amendment's possible interpretations, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead.
And maybe you should go take some classes on critical thinking, and maybe one on discourse so you can learn to close your arguments without resorting to insults like this one.
I am not insulting you at all.. If anything I am insulting your government teacher for their poor teaching job on how US government works. If you hate the constitution so much why don't you move to a country that fits your idea if how a government is supposed to work and stop trying to fundamentally change the US? That would seem to be the easier choice. Like it or not that is how the government was founded and unless they have another constitutional convention that is how it's going to stay. I am just explaining facts.
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
Oh, liberatians vehemently oppose the entirety of the monstrosity that is Obama-care. The Cathollic church have made no attempt to encroach on your personal liberty, they are merely refusing to pay for this part of it.
True, such comments are nearly invariably unproductive, but if they don't appear once in a while that means free speach is restricted.
That's not true. The Catholic church is well known for trying to get things they find immoral or against their faith made illegal. They also put quite a bit of money into lobbying for e.g. abortion to become illegal.
The problem with all these shenanigans over covering contraception lately is purely political and nothing else. There's already been a solution proposed where employers who have an objection to contraception don't have to provide it and instead the insurance company would.
As an employer, you don't get to say that another company (in this case an insurer) can't provide something. It's not your place. It's entirely between an employee and THAT company. That many republicans want to adopt the position that such an alternative is unacceptable and there's no room for compromise is just a load of shit and exactly the reason that Congress has such an abysmal approval rating. There's basically zero chance I'll vote for any of the republican candidates because of things like this (notably the 'no room for compromise' shit they've been spouting for months/years as it goes beyond just this issue).
I just want to say that anyone arguing that providing contraceptives will somehow raise insurance rates is wrong. And if simple logic isn't enough for you (it's much cheaper to provide ~$500-$1000/year contraception then the average >$20,000 hospitals charge for deliveries, not to mention prenatal doctor visits and prenatal care as well as pediatric services that the insurance has to provide after the baby is born). Here's a source that clearly explains it. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060112.html Someone already posted it here but it seems people are still using the same argument of "I don't want my insurance rates to go up just so some hussy can have a good time on my hard earned dollar."
On March 03 2012 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote: without a direct quote from rush i won't pass judgement on what he said or didn't say. if he straight up called her a slut, than ok, that's wrong. however, this woman is clearly being untruthful about a debate that, as far as i know, she has no place being in (and don't start with this "she's a woman!" stuff either). is she a doctor? is she an insurance provider? is she a religious leader? does she have any expertise whatsoever on the subject? or does she have a sensationalist story that tries to play on our emotions instead of addressing the actual issue in a rational manner? my bet goes with it being the latter.
and the fact that i am reading a comment right now basically saying:
"why do republicans want to ban birth control?"
is proof that both sides of the aisle are creating strawmen here and using sensationalism to get their point across. no prominent republican has ever suggested banning birth control, or limiting women's access to it, or preventing women from getting it or preventing people from selling it. don't be ridiculous.
Edited the OP with the video clip of Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to hear it.
On March 03 2012 06:28 OsoVega wrote: Except that birth control is a low and chosen cost. Insurance is about low likelihood, high cost things. It makes zero sense to include birth control with insurance at all.
That's not what insurance is about at all. Insurance is about risk pooling. What the expected payoff or risk ratios values are, is irrelevant.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
Except that heart surgery, broken bones, etc. are high cost, low likelihood things. That is the point of insurance, not providing everything necessary to a particular need.
It's silly when you look at the word, isn't it?
Using simple means of control to insure you don't get pregnant seems like a rather necessary thing for any health insurer to provide. Employees don't get to choose their health-care, since the employers usually do that. And it's silly, especially in today's economy, that we would expect women to not take a job but look elsewhere, because her employer or health-insurance provider thinks birth control is just some personal luxury item.
The US o' A is* such an assbackwards country at times, especially the whole system of employment-tied healthcare, which ties employees to their jobs (can't quit/change jobs as easily for fear of loss of health insurance, which benefits the employer) and the health insurance companies that provide the services (which benefits the health insurance companies).
This really should not even be an issue in a modern society.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
Except that heart surgery, broken bones, etc. are high cost, low likelihood things. That is the point of insurance, not providing everything necessary to a particular need.
Heart surgery and broken bones are low likelyhood things? I've had three broken bones in my entire life. I've had 0 pregnancies. I'm going to go out on a limb (no pun intended honest) and say that I'm in the majority as far as that goes. But besides that are you saying that health insurance should only cover catastrophic events and preventative healthcare like doctor visits for regular check-ups as well as medicine for people who have high blood pressure but not real heart disease should not be covered either? Again all these things are "choices."
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote: This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
Oh, liberatians vehemently oppose the entirety of the monstrosity that is Obama-care. The Cathollic church have made no attempt to encroach on your personal liberty, they are merely refusing to pay for this part of it.
True, such comments are nearly invariably unproductive, but if they don't appear once in a while that means free speach is restricted.
This isnt just talking about churches funding birth control its "religious institutions" as a whole, which include a lot of colleges/universities/hospitals. That is a lot of potential employers
Also, the argument being made by some individuals is that you can just choose not to be employed by one of these institutions, or choose not to get your education from one of these places. But should a female be forced to make employment or schooling decisions based on the potential access to medication?
I'll take your word for it, but the scale of the effects are irrelvant to my argument. Which is, it is a poor - not to mention imoral - idea to expand the grasp of government for Obama-care in general and for contraceptives in particular (which is minor if not trivial part of it anyway).
Hello Eric ^^ I wouldnt say that expanding the grasp of government is in and of itself immoral, and I honestly dont know enough about the health care debate to say anything of worth that has facts to back it up. I think that in a country this large maybe perhaps individual states should be the ones to decide their health care programs, though I live in MA and already have a similar version of what is being applied nationally. The United States is the only country in the industrial world with the health care coverage problems that we have, and I think that a move to bring a basic right to humans is not that absurd.
On March 03 2012 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote: without a direct quote from rush i won't pass judgement on what he said or didn't say. if he straight up called her a slut, than ok, that's wrong. however, this woman is clearly being untruthful about a debate that, as far as i know, she has no place being in (and don't start with this "she's a woman!" stuff either). is she a doctor? is she an insurance provider? is she a religious leader? does she have any expertise whatsoever on the subject? or does she have a sensationalist story that tries to play on our emotions instead of addressing the actual issue in a rational manner? my bet goes with it being the latter.
and the fact that i am reading a comment right now basically saying:
"why do republicans want to ban birth control?"
is proof that both sides of the aisle are creating strawmen here and using sensationalism to get their point across. no prominent republican has ever suggested banning birth control, or limiting women's access to it, or preventing women from getting it or preventing people from selling it. don't be ridiculous.
Edited the OP with the video clip of Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to hear it.
lol, right at the end he said: "i take it back."
and his point was actually a lot deeper than just calling her a slut and a prostitute. it's hilarious that people are coming down on him for it (which is acceptable), while completely hiding the context in which he said it and acting like he just called her the name.
before you go crazy and tell me that the context doesn't matter, it does. he was making a broader point about her statement than just "she's a slut!"
I can't even listen to Rush most times, he's too religious for my blood.
But I gotta say, he's right on here. If you can't afford the contraception, don't have sex. I can accept the argument that idiots will fuck anyway, and the burden to society is greater if an unwanted child is born, so we should fund contraception...
But then why don't we just shoot these idiots once they prove themselves to be idiots? Society would be better off, save it money.
On March 03 2012 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote: without a direct quote from rush i won't pass judgement on what he said or didn't say. if he straight up called her a slut, than ok, that's wrong. however, this woman is clearly being untruthful about a debate that, as far as i know, she has no place being in (and don't start with this "she's a woman!" stuff either). is she a doctor? is she an insurance provider? is she a religious leader? does she have any expertise whatsoever on the subject? or does she have a sensationalist story that tries to play on our emotions instead of addressing the actual issue in a rational manner? my bet goes with it being the latter.
and the fact that i am reading a comment right now basically saying:
"why do republicans want to ban birth control?"
is proof that both sides of the aisle are creating strawmen here and using sensationalism to get their point across. no prominent republican has ever suggested banning birth control, or limiting women's access to it, or preventing women from getting it or preventing people from selling it. don't be ridiculous.
Edited the OP with the video clip of Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to hear it.
lol, right at the end he said: "i take it back."
and his point was actually a lot deeper than just calling her a slut and a prostitute. it's hilarious that people are coming down on him for it (which is acceptable), while completely hiding the context in which he said it and acting like he just called her the name.
before you go crazy and tell me that the context doesn't matter, it does. he was making a broader point about her statement than just "she's a slut!"
He pretty much just called her a name though...? Or instead rather, he called ALL females who want affordable medication costs sluts, even worse I suppose
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
On March 03 2012 06:46 Felnarion wrote: I can't even listen to Rush most times, he's too religious for my blood.
But I gotta say, he's right on here. If you can't afford the contraception, don't have sex. I can accept the argument that idiots will fuck anyway, and the burden to society is greater if an unwanted child is born, so we should fund contraception...
But then why don't we just shoot these idiots once they prove themselves to be idiots? Society would be better off, save it money.
Because you don't want to support government-mandated birth control suppport...
... you call for the government to murder its citizens en masse to save money?
On March 03 2012 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote: without a direct quote from rush i won't pass judgement on what he said or didn't say. if he straight up called her a slut, than ok, that's wrong. however, this woman is clearly being untruthful about a debate that, as far as i know, she has no place being in (and don't start with this "she's a woman!" stuff either). is she a doctor? is she an insurance provider? is she a religious leader? does she have any expertise whatsoever on the subject? or does she have a sensationalist story that tries to play on our emotions instead of addressing the actual issue in a rational manner? my bet goes with it being the latter.
and the fact that i am reading a comment right now basically saying:
"why do republicans want to ban birth control?"
is proof that both sides of the aisle are creating strawmen here and using sensationalism to get their point across. no prominent republican has ever suggested banning birth control, or limiting women's access to it, or preventing women from getting it or preventing people from selling it. don't be ridiculous.
Edited the OP with the video clip of Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to hear it.
lol, right at the end he said: "i take it back."
and his point was actually a lot deeper than just calling her a slut and a prostitute. it's hilarious that people are coming down on him for it (which is acceptable), while completely hiding the context in which he said it and acting like he just called her the name.
before you go crazy and tell me that the context doesn't matter, it does. he was making a broader point about her statement than just "she's a slut!"
He pretty much just called her a name though...? Or instead rather, he called ALL females who want affordable medication costs sluts, even worse I suppose
no he didn't "just call her a name". but whatever, i don't think he should have said it that way. his point was valid though, and absolutely not he was not calling "all females who want affordable medication costs sluts". this is exactly what i'm talking about: you condemn him for using a word, and then you completely misrepresent him. imo they are just as dishonest and wrong.
On March 03 2012 06:49 Dark Templar wrote: ... Sure, things shouldn't change, Obama-care shouldn't be implemented and you should pay for you own pills.
See earlier post.
I do pay for it- just not full price which could be about 80-200$ a month, which would be unreasonable to me if I had no insurance. I simply could not afford that and I dont think I am speaking alone in that matter
On March 03 2012 06:49 Dark Templar wrote: ... Sure, things shouldn't change, Obama-care shouldn't be implemented and you should pay for you own pills.
See earlier post.
I do pay for it- just not full price which could be about 80-200$ a month, which would be unreasonable to me if I had no insurance. I simply could not afford that and I dont think I am speaking alone in that matter
How much does your insurance cost? Does it only provide you birth control because you have a unique medical condition which would result in more than just pregnancy? If not, the cost of the birth control is built into the cost of your insurance. Think about it. How can an insurance company profit off of offering you birth control when birth control, unlike things like broken bones, cancer, etc. will happen. The only way they can profit/break even is by including all of the cost of the birth control that you consume into your premium. This is not the same case for chance things (such as developing a condition in which not having birth control will cause health issues) which might not happen in which they would profit off of the premium while never paying out.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
On March 03 2012 06:49 Dark Templar wrote: ... Sure, things shouldn't change, Obama-care shouldn't be implemented and you should pay for you own pills.
See earlier post.
I do pay for it- just not full price which could be about 80-200$ a month, which would be unreasonable to me if I had no insurance. I simply could not afford that and I dont think I am speaking alone in that matter
I think that private insurance (or whatever the individual may choose) is preferable over the government getting involved. Please raise your fist half-heartedly.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient.
On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote: It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses.
The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked.
You have the constitution in one hand, and you're looking at what in our country in unconstitutional.
And THIS is what you come up with? Mandating insurance-coverage for birth control?
The constitution isn't to be revered. The Second Amendment, for example, sucks. It doesn't define firearms or militias. By the Second Amendment's possible interpretations, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead.
And maybe you should go take some classes on critical thinking, and maybe one on discourse so you can learn to close your arguments without resorting to insults like this one.
I am not insulting you at all.. If anything I am insulting your government teacher for their poor teaching job on how US government works. If you hate the constitution so much why don't you move to a country that fits your idea if how a government is supposed to work and stop trying to fundamentally change the US? That would seem to be the easier choice. Like it or not that is how the government was founded and unless they have another constitutional convention that is how it's going to stay. I am just explaining facts.
Am I wrong, or did the Blunt Bill fail?
Oh, yes it did. So I'm fine. I''m not the one saying the law currently is unconstitutional. That'd be the Republicans. But the government just voted, and it disagrees. So now it's constitutional. Because that's what our politicians voted it to be. It's that simple. Just like in countless other cases, the constitution is only as good as our interpretation, which is exactly how it was meant to be.
That's why I don't have to move. Our government isn't written in stone. Maybe you're the one who needs classes, or needs to move, or needs to do whatever other generic belittling statement you come up with next.
On March 03 2012 06:49 Dark Templar wrote: ... Sure, things shouldn't change, Obama-care shouldn't be implemented and you should pay for you own pills.
See earlier post.
I do pay for it- just not full price which could be about 80-200$ a month, which would be unreasonable to me if I had no insurance. I simply could not afford that and I dont think I am speaking alone in that matter
How much does your insurance cost? Does it only provide you birth control because you have a unique medical condition which would result in more than just pregnancy? If not, the cost of the birth control is built into the cost of your insurance. Think about it. How can an insurance company profit off of offering you birth control when birth control, unlike things like broken bones, cancer, etc. will happen. The only way they can profit/break even is by including all of the cost of the birth control that you consume into your premium. This is not the same case for chance things (such as developing a condition in which not having birth control will cause health issues) which might not happen in which they would profit off of the premium while never paying out.
I pay 15$/month and yes the reason I was originally prescribed was for a medical reason. How do they lose money if I am paying for insurance and paying money for the medication that I will likely be on for a good majority of my life. Seems like they would make money off of that.
And I watched the first few minutes of it- seems to be more against the so called "Obama Care" in general, a position that I can respect but disagree with.
On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote: It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses.
The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked.
You have the constitution in one hand, and you're looking at what in our country in unconstitutional.
And THIS is what you come up with? Mandating insurance-coverage for birth control?
The constitution isn't to be revered. The Second Amendment, for example, sucks. It doesn't define firearms or militias. By the Second Amendment's possible interpretations, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead.
And maybe you should go take some classes on critical thinking, and maybe one on discourse so you can learn to close your arguments without resorting to insults like this one.
I am not insulting you at all.. If anything I am insulting your government teacher for their poor teaching job on how US government works. If you hate the constitution so much why don't you move to a country that fits your idea if how a government is supposed to work and stop trying to fundamentally change the US? That would seem to be the easier choice. Like it or not that is how the government was founded and unless they have another constitutional convention that is how it's going to stay. I am just explaining facts.
Am I wrong, or did the Blunt Bill fail?
Oh, yes it did. So I'm fine. I''m not the one saying the law currently is unconstitutional. That'd be the Republicans. But the government just voted, and it disagrees. So now it's constitutional. Because that's what our politicians voted it to be. It's that simple. Just like in countless other cases, the constitution is only as good as our interpretation, which is exactly how it was meant to be.
That's why I don't have to move. Our government isn't written in stone. Maybe you're the one who needs classes, or needs to move, or needs to do whatever other generic belittling statement you come up with next.
Just because the government ignores the constitution and does something, it does not make that thing constitutional. All it means is that it's possible to circumvent the constitution.
On March 03 2012 06:49 Dark Templar wrote: ... Sure, things shouldn't change, Obama-care shouldn't be implemented and you should pay for you own pills.
See earlier post.
I do pay for it- just not full price which could be about 80-200$ a month, which would be unreasonable to me if I had no insurance. I simply could not afford that and I dont think I am speaking alone in that matter
How much does your insurance cost? Does it only provide you birth control because you have a unique medical condition which would result in more than just pregnancy? If not, the cost of the birth control is built into the cost of your insurance. Think about it. How can an insurance company profit off of offering you birth control when birth control, unlike things like broken bones, cancer, etc. will happen. The only way they can profit/break even is by including all of the cost of the birth control that you consume into your premium. This is not the same case for chance things (such as developing a condition in which not having birth control will cause health issues) which might not happen in which they would profit off of the premium while never paying out.
That video makes no sense. It uses the argument that any person with a chronic disease should be denied treatment. If insulin was not available a lot of people could not afford it, or be forced on a keto diet while reducing the amount of blood test a person would take leading to other health issues. The problem with the plan is and has been for a long time in the healthcare industry is that medicine is to expensive and health care is profit driven.
The main reason for this is and is with many laws in the US is to assist poorer women.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient.
And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason.
On March 03 2012 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote: without a direct quote from rush i won't pass judgement on what he said or didn't say. if he straight up called her a slut, than ok, that's wrong. however, this woman is clearly being untruthful about a debate that, as far as i know, she has no place being in (and don't start with this "she's a woman!" stuff either). is she a doctor? is she an insurance provider? is she a religious leader? does she have any expertise whatsoever on the subject? or does she have a sensationalist story that tries to play on our emotions instead of addressing the actual issue in a rational manner? my bet goes with it being the latter.
and the fact that i am reading a comment right now basically saying:
"why do republicans want to ban birth control?"
is proof that both sides of the aisle are creating strawmen here and using sensationalism to get their point across. no prominent republican has ever suggested banning birth control, or limiting women's access to it, or preventing women from getting it or preventing people from selling it. don't be ridiculous.
Edited the OP with the video clip of Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to hear it.
lol, right at the end he said: "i take it back."
and his point was actually a lot deeper than just calling her a slut and a prostitute. it's hilarious that people are coming down on him for it (which is acceptable), while completely hiding the context in which he said it and acting like he just called her the name.
before you go crazy and tell me that the context doesn't matter, it does. he was making a broader point about her statement than just "she's a slut!"
Yeah he took it back with a smirk on his face and called her round-heeled instead. Much better.
On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote: It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses.
The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked.
You have the constitution in one hand, and you're looking at what in our country in unconstitutional.
And THIS is what you come up with? Mandating insurance-coverage for birth control?
The constitution isn't to be revered. The Second Amendment, for example, sucks. It doesn't define firearms or militias. By the Second Amendment's possible interpretations, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead.
And maybe you should go take some classes on critical thinking, and maybe one on discourse so you can learn to close your arguments without resorting to insults like this one.
I am not insulting you at all.. If anything I am insulting your government teacher for their poor teaching job on how US government works. If you hate the constitution so much why don't you move to a country that fits your idea if how a government is supposed to work and stop trying to fundamentally change the US? That would seem to be the easier choice. Like it or not that is how the government was founded and unless they have another constitutional convention that is how it's going to stay. I am just explaining facts.
Am I wrong, or did the Blunt Bill fail?
Oh, yes it did. So I'm fine. I''m not the one saying the law currently is unconstitutional. That'd be the Republicans. But the government just voted, and it disagrees. So now it's constitutional. Because that's what our politicians voted it to be. It's that simple. Just like in countless other cases, the constitution is only as good as our interpretation, which is exactly how it was meant to be.
That's why I don't have to move. Our government isn't written in stone. Maybe you're the one who needs classes, or needs to move, or needs to do whatever other generic belittling statement you come up with next.
Honestly man, you just keep showing your ignorance on this issue. It is not up to the politicians to judge constitutionality, politicians just make laws, they can make laws that are unconstitutional, although morally they shouldn't. It is up to the JUDICIAL system to judge the constitutionality not congress... Just because some congressmen vote on something and it passes doesn't mean it is automatically constitutional.
If there is an unconstitutional law it is filed and tried in court where the government is supposed to defend it and whoever is making the claim is stating why it is unconstitutional. It goes up the judicial ladder as each side opposes the ruling until it reaches the supreme court which has the ultimate ruling on the constitutionality of a law. In no way shape or form does the legislative branch or the executive branch have any say on the constitutionality of an issue.
It's always funny to me when Rush Limbaugh says things purposely designed to get a rise out of the media, and then the media suddenly jump on it and go crazy. Rush has been trolling people like this since the 80's, he's perfected the art.
He says himself repeatedly, that he tries to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. Those people who hate him just take his absurd statements at face value and go wild, and give him free advertising.
Can't people tell just from watching that video that he's TRYING to instigate anger? And everyone bites lol. I'm not a fan of RL but when things like this happen I can't help but enjoy his trolling.
As a christian I believe that people should be allowed to exercise their god given ability of free will, even if I don't agree with it. labeling anything religious or conservative the same because of cnn is just stupid no one I've ever met takes them seriously and the bill failed. It was more of the conservatives trying to add in that they wouldn't have to pay for abortions that might come later. trying to be meta makes you stupid and look stupid which means you get in situations like this. if they where taking it because they wanted to they should pay for it but if its for any health reasons theres no reason why it shouldn't be covered like any other drug.
The debates held in congress and the whole process is so outdated it makes me sick. The country would be a lot better off if there was a "health court" with doctors to make these decisions for the betterment of peoples health instead of leaving it up to politics.
It's a little sad that it took an issue that was resolved before I was born to get liberals engaged again, but at least we've finally set a line on how far back in the past we refuse to let this country get taken. Incredible that Rush Limbaugh doesn't care enough to even read what Ms. Fluke was saying (hint: it wasn't about having too much sex) and doesn't even understand how female contraception works (one a day, no matter your sexual activity). What an idiot.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
Oh boy...you completely interpreted what I said wrong. That's almost impressive.
So, my entire post was about how having sex and pregnancy, is nothing like playing a sport and breaking a bone. People have deluded themselves into thinking conception isn't just the natural result of sex, and now view it as some random/undesired side effect.
Sex is a choice. You can satisfy your sexual needs in other ways, like others in the thread have pointed out. You won't ever see someone willing to kill another person, because they're really horny. It's not the same as being hungry. Sex is far more complex than that.
I never said to stop having sex. I never said a person could change their sexual orientation. I never even stated my opinion on the matter of the original topic. I don't see why you're jumping to such random conclusions.
I called him stupid because he was comparing having sex and producing a baby, to playing a sport and breaking a bone. Please improve your reading comprehension abilities before posting.
On March 03 2012 06:49 Dark Templar wrote: ... Sure, things shouldn't change, Obama-care shouldn't be implemented and you should pay for you own pills.
See earlier post.
I do pay for it- just not full price which could be about 80-200$ a month, which would be unreasonable to me if I had no insurance. I simply could not afford that and I dont think I am speaking alone in that matter
How much does your insurance cost? Does it only provide you birth control because you have a unique medical condition which would result in more than just pregnancy? If not, the cost of the birth control is built into the cost of your insurance. Think about it. How can an insurance company profit off of offering you birth control when birth control, unlike things like broken bones, cancer, etc. will happen. The only way they can profit/break even is by including all of the cost of the birth control that you consume into your premium. This is not the same case for chance things (such as developing a condition in which not having birth control will cause health issues) which might not happen in which they would profit off of the premium while never paying out.
I pay 15$/month and yes the reason I was originally prescribed was for a medical reason. How do they lose money if I am paying for insurance and paying money for the medication that I will likely be on for a good majority of my life. Seems like they would make money off of that.
And I watched the first few minutes of it- seems to be more against the so called "Obama Care" in general, a position that I can respect but disagree with.
They are losing money on you because you are only paying $15 for $80-$200 worth of medication, plus the chance of something else going wrong. This is fine because this is the game that insurance companies play, and when you signed up, there was a chance that they would have made a profit off of you. However, if every single woman who wanted contraception could get it from their insurance provider, the only way for the company to profit would be to raise premiums so that the cost of the contraception is already included.
On March 03 2012 07:21 tree.hugger wrote: It's a little sad that it took an issue that was resolved before I was born to get liberals engaged again, but at least we've finally set a line on how far back in the past we refuse to let this country get taken. Incredible that Rush Limbaugh doesn't care enough to even read what Ms. Fluke was saying (hint: it wasn't about having too much sex) and doesn't even understand how female contraception works (one a day, no matter your sexual activity). What an idiot.
You do realize that requiring employer provided insurance to include contraception is new?
Incredible when people don't even realize they are getting trolled. He says it with a smirk on his face and they still think he's 100% serious. He tries to anger liberals, and they all comply. Amazing to me.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient.
And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason.
But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself.
Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic.
On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote: It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses.
The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked.
You have the constitution in one hand, and you're looking at what in our country in unconstitutional.
And THIS is what you come up with? Mandating insurance-coverage for birth control?
The constitution isn't to be revered. The Second Amendment, for example, sucks. It doesn't define firearms or militias. By the Second Amendment's possible interpretations, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead.
And maybe you should go take some classes on critical thinking, and maybe one on discourse so you can learn to close your arguments without resorting to insults like this one.
I am not insulting you at all.. If anything I am insulting your government teacher for their poor teaching job on how US government works. If you hate the constitution so much why don't you move to a country that fits your idea if how a government is supposed to work and stop trying to fundamentally change the US? That would seem to be the easier choice. Like it or not that is how the government was founded and unless they have another constitutional convention that is how it's going to stay. I am just explaining facts.
Am I wrong, or did the Blunt Bill fail?
Oh, yes it did. So I'm fine. I''m not the one saying the law currently is unconstitutional. That'd be the Republicans. But the government just voted, and it disagrees. So now it's constitutional. Because that's what our politicians voted it to be. It's that simple. Just like in countless other cases, the constitution is only as good as our interpretation, which is exactly how it was meant to be.
That's why I don't have to move. Our government isn't written in stone. Maybe you're the one who needs classes, or needs to move, or needs to do whatever other generic belittling statement you come up with next.
Honestly man, you just keep showing your ignorance on this issue. It is not up to the politicians to judge constitutionality, politicians just make laws, they can make laws that are unconstitutional, although morally they shouldn't. It is up to the JUDICIAL system to judge the constitutionality not congress... Just because some congressmen vote on something and it passes doesn't mean it is automatically constitutional.
If there is an unconstitutional law it is filed and tried in court where the government is supposed to defend it and whoever is making the claim is stating why it is unconstitutional. It goes up the judicial ladder as each side opposes the ruling until it reaches the supreme court which has the ultimate ruling on the constitutionality of a law. In no way shape or form does the legislative branch or the executive branch have any say on the constitutionality of an issue.
The Supreme Court may decide, of its own volition, to rule on a law Congress has made. Some laws are simply never ruled upon. So are they unconstitutional?
But since you say it isn't the job of Congress to decide what is constitutional, well, isn't that exactly what the Blunt Bill was doing? It's proponents are arguing for the Bill on a constitutional basis.
So it seems we agree that this whole issue should never have been brought up, and since the Supreme Court has never declared the government mandating health-insurance to provide birth-control to be an unconstitutional act, it therefore isn't.
So, as I said in the beginning, arguing about the constitutionality of every bill that provides public welfare is stupid and is missing the point of practical government. But apparently you disagree, only now you seem to be arguing the point I was originally making.
On March 03 2012 07:21 tree.hugger wrote: It's a little sad that it took an issue that was resolved before I was born to get liberals engaged again, but at least we've finally set a line on how far back in the past we refuse to let this country get taken. Incredible that Rush Limbaugh doesn't care enough to even read what Ms. Fluke was saying (hint: it wasn't about having too much sex) and doesn't even understand how female contraception works (one a day, no matter your sexual activity). What an idiot.
You do realize that requiring employer provided insurance to include contraception is new?
On March 03 2012 07:32 Leporello wrote: arguing about the constitutionality of every bill that provides public welfare is stupid and is missing the point of practical government.
Not debating every expansion in government powers is stupid, and misses the point of a constitutionally restricted government.
The purpose of a constitution is to prevent the government from doing certain things, with good reason, whether you think those things would be "practical" or not.
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote: The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
Oh boy...you completely interpreted what I said wrong. That's almost impressive.
So, my entire post was about how having sex and pregnancy, is nothing like playing a sport and breaking a bone. People have deluded themselves into thinking conception isn't just the natural result of sex, and now view it as some random/undesired side effect.
Sex is a choice. You can satisfy your sexual needs in other ways, like others in the thread have pointed out. You won't ever see someone willing to kill another person, because they're really horny. It's not the same as being hungry. Sex is far more complex than that.
I never said to stop having sex. I never said a person could change their sexual orientation. I never even stated my opinion on the matter of the original topic. I don't see why you're jumping to such random conclusions.
I called him stupid because he was comparing having sex and producing a baby, to playing a sport and breaking a bone. Please improve your reading comprehension abilities before posting.
This post is so full of win....
So first of all the first post you responded to and the second one were both done by me so your use of pronouns (he said, you said) were just off so I'm not sure who needs to learn reading comprehension.
Next...
You won't ever see someone willing to kill another person, because they're really horny.
Are you serious???? Have you never heard of this thing called rapists? Now granted they either have an abnormal sex drive or an abnormal impulse control but a rapist is a perfect example of just how strong a human sex drive can be. My jumping to random conclusions comes from your ignorant statement of (and I quote)
Having sex with always be a choice [sic],
While we certainly do choose when and who with we have sex it is a fundamental human need so people will always not just choose to have sex but need to have sex. That whole post was simply a response to that.
Finally if you read the full conversation and how I got to compare basketball and broken bones to sex and contraception was that an argument was brought forth that insurance should only cover unforeseen risks and since having sex is something that you know you're going to do you should pay for it yourself. I argued that eating a cheesburger increases your chances of a heart attack by so much that the same argument can be brought up as to why insurers shouldn't have to cover heart surgery for obese people. Another example was made by me that by playing a sport meant that you were putting yourself at greater risk of injuring yourself and therefore again insurers shouldn't have to cover any injuries since it was again not an unforeseen risk. This was when you chimed in and decided to take an example our of context and show everyone just how smart you were with your wonderful "sex is a choice" post. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding
On March 03 2012 07:32 Leporello wrote: arguing about the constitutionality of every bill that provides public welfare is stupid and is missing the point of practical government.
Not debating every expansion in government powers is stupid, and misses the point of a constitutionally restricted government.
The purpose of a constitution is to prevent the government from doing certain things, with good reason, whether you think those things would be "practical" or not.
The constitution prevented black people and women from voting.
On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote: It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses.
The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked.
You have the constitution in one hand, and you're looking at what in our country in unconstitutional.
And THIS is what you come up with? Mandating insurance-coverage for birth control?
The constitution isn't to be revered. The Second Amendment, for example, sucks. It doesn't define firearms or militias. By the Second Amendment's possible interpretations, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead.
And maybe you should go take some classes on critical thinking, and maybe one on discourse so you can learn to close your arguments without resorting to insults like this one.
I am not insulting you at all.. If anything I am insulting your government teacher for their poor teaching job on how US government works. If you hate the constitution so much why don't you move to a country that fits your idea if how a government is supposed to work and stop trying to fundamentally change the US? That would seem to be the easier choice. Like it or not that is how the government was founded and unless they have another constitutional convention that is how it's going to stay. I am just explaining facts.
Am I wrong, or did the Blunt Bill fail?
Oh, yes it did. So I'm fine. I''m not the one saying the law currently is unconstitutional. That'd be the Republicans. But the government just voted, and it disagrees. So now it's constitutional. Because that's what our politicians voted it to be. It's that simple. Just like in countless other cases, the constitution is only as good as our interpretation, which is exactly how it was meant to be.
That's why I don't have to move. Our government isn't written in stone. Maybe you're the one who needs classes, or needs to move, or needs to do whatever other generic belittling statement you come up with next.
Honestly man, you just keep showing your ignorance on this issue. It is not up to the politicians to judge constitutionality, politicians just make laws, they can make laws that are unconstitutional, although morally they shouldn't. It is up to the JUDICIAL system to judge the constitutionality not congress... Just because some congressmen vote on something and it passes doesn't mean it is automatically constitutional.
If there is an unconstitutional law it is filed and tried in court where the government is supposed to defend it and whoever is making the claim is stating why it is unconstitutional. It goes up the judicial ladder as each side opposes the ruling until it reaches the supreme court which has the ultimate ruling on the constitutionality of a law. In no way shape or form does the legislative branch or the executive branch have any say on the constitutionality of an issue.
The Supreme Court may decide, of its own volition, to rule on a law Congress has made. Some laws are simply never ruled upon. So are they unconstitutional?
But since you say it isn't the job of Congress to decide what is constitutional, well, isn't that exactly what the Blunt Bill was doing? It's proponents are arguing for the Bill on a constitutional basis.
So it seems we agree that this whole issue should never have been brought up, and since the Supreme Court has never declared the government mandating health-insurance to provide birth-control to be an unconstitutional act, it therefore isn't.
So, as I said in the beginning, arguing about the constitutionality of every bill that provides public welfare is stupid and is missing the point of practical government. But apparently you disagree, only now you seem to be arguing the point I was originally making.
So, thanks, I guess.
Do you believe in objective truth? If a supreme court judge (appointed by a democratically elected President) declares it constitutional to confiscate all the privately held gold in the United States, would that make it constitutional? What if they declared it constitutional to ban all firearms or to establish Christianity as the official religion of the United States.
On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote: It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses.
The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked.
You have the constitution in one hand, and you're looking at what in our country in unconstitutional.
And THIS is what you come up with? Mandating insurance-coverage for birth control?
The constitution isn't to be revered. The Second Amendment, for example, sucks. It doesn't define firearms or militias. By the Second Amendment's possible interpretations, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead.
And maybe you should go take some classes on critical thinking, and maybe one on discourse so you can learn to close your arguments without resorting to insults like this one.
I am not insulting you at all.. If anything I am insulting your government teacher for their poor teaching job on how US government works. If you hate the constitution so much why don't you move to a country that fits your idea if how a government is supposed to work and stop trying to fundamentally change the US? That would seem to be the easier choice. Like it or not that is how the government was founded and unless they have another constitutional convention that is how it's going to stay. I am just explaining facts.
Am I wrong, or did the Blunt Bill fail?
Oh, yes it did. So I'm fine. I''m not the one saying the law currently is unconstitutional. That'd be the Republicans. But the government just voted, and it disagrees. So now it's constitutional. Because that's what our politicians voted it to be. It's that simple. Just like in countless other cases, the constitution is only as good as our interpretation, which is exactly how it was meant to be.
That's why I don't have to move. Our government isn't written in stone. Maybe you're the one who needs classes, or needs to move, or needs to do whatever other generic belittling statement you come up with next.
Honestly man, you just keep showing your ignorance on this issue. It is not up to the politicians to judge constitutionality, politicians just make laws, they can make laws that are unconstitutional, although morally they shouldn't. It is up to the JUDICIAL system to judge the constitutionality not congress... Just because some congressmen vote on something and it passes doesn't mean it is automatically constitutional.
If there is an unconstitutional law it is filed and tried in court where the government is supposed to defend it and whoever is making the claim is stating why it is unconstitutional. It goes up the judicial ladder as each side opposes the ruling until it reaches the supreme court which has the ultimate ruling on the constitutionality of a law. In no way shape or form does the legislative branch or the executive branch have any say on the constitutionality of an issue.
The Supreme Court may decide, of its own volition, to rule on a law Congress has made. Some laws are simply never ruled upon. So are they unconstitutional?
But since you say it isn't the job of Congress to decide what is constitutional, well, isn't that exactly what the Blunt Bill was doing? It's proponents are arguing for the Bill on a constitutional basis.
So it seems we agree that this whole issue should never have been brought up, and since the Supreme Court has never declared the government mandating health-insurance to provide birth-control to be an unconstitutional act, it therefore isn't.
So, as I said in the beginning, arguing about the constitutionality of every bill that provides public welfare is stupid and is missing the point of practical government. But apparently you disagree, only now you seem to be arguing the point I was originally making.
So, thanks, I guess.
A law may be unconstitutional even before the judicial system agrees it is.. It's like saying someone isn't pregnant before they go to the doctor and prove they are pregnant... If no one points out laws are unconstitutional then they will never be heard by the supreme court in the first place and unconstitutional laws will be forced onto the people. The Blunt Amendment was trying to fix the constitutionality of the bill before it was heard by the judicial system. It's a matter of morals, someone who willingly tries to pass an unconstitutional law to see if it will go through has no right to be a legislator. Just throw a ton of BS laws and see what sticks is what is ruining this country. It is wasting time and it is taking away peoples rights given to them by the constitution when they actually to make it through.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient.
And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason.
But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself.
Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic.
I don't believe that you are correct in that insurance companies won't make any money off of it. Not everyone needs birth-control therefore the costs are spread out just like insurance is meant to work. A 25 year old female pays into the insurance fund so that she can get birth control and ob-gyn visits. A 60 year old male pays into the insurance fund so that he can get prostate cancer treatments. Different people pay into the insurance funds in order to get different treatment. I'm not sure why you think insurance companies need to sell contraceptives in order to make a profit. There are plenty of insurance policies that cover contraceptives and as far as I know they're doing just fine.
As far as idealogy vs reason I don't want to derail the thread, but all I was saying was that I doubt most republicans really care that much about providing contraception. But it is on the social conservative idealogy list and so it doesn't matter what does and does not make sense they have to be against it.
There is something I'm not clear on, does it require employers to offer a plan that includes birth control, or does it require them to include birth control in the insurance policy no matter what?
What started out as just a distraction to get Rick Santorum to talk about social issues and not talk about the economy has turned into this.. I'm saddened this was even brought up in the media during the debates. Most people couldn't care less about this, or other social issues like gay marriage or abortion. People care about getting a job and living their life without the government up their ass, I see it as nothing more than to distract from the bad job Obama is doing (even though his job really isn't to manage the economy) at creating an environment to grow the economy and get people working again.
On March 03 2012 06:09 meadbert wrote: [quote] Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient.
And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason.
But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself.
Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic.
I don't believe that you are correct in that insurance companies won't make any money off of it. Not everyone needs birth-control therefore the costs are spread out just like insurance is meant to work. A 25 year old female pays into the insurance fund so that she can get birth control and ob-gyn visits. A 60 year old male pays into the insurance fund so that he can get prostate cancer treatments. Different people pay into the insurance funds in order to get different treatment. I'm not sure why you think insurance companies need to sell contraceptives in order to make a profit. There are plenty of insurance policies that cover contraceptives and as far as I know they're doing just fine.
As far as idealogy vs reason I don't want to derail the thread, but all I was saying was that I doubt most republicans really care that much about providing contraception. But it is on the social conservative idealogy list and so it doesn't matter what does and does not make sense they have to be against it.
It's because contraception is fundamentally different from things like prostate cancer treatments. Contraception is something that any woman can choose to consume. Hell, even if they don't want it, they can just take it and sell it to a friend who doesn't have it depending on the kind and how it is administered. Prostate cancer treatments, on the other hand, are not something that you go into an insurance policy, with the intention to take out, but something that you might take out if by chance you develop prostate cancer. A man pays into the policy, with chances being that he will lose money in the long run (otherwise, the company could never make money), in exchange for insurance against chance occurrences (breaking a bone, developing cancer). If you do end up taking out more than you put in, the money to pay for that comes from the premiums of people who didn't get all that sick and paid more to the insurance company than they received. When you got into it at the beggining, there was a chance that you would pay for other people's bills and a chance that other people would pay for your bills. If you want want contraception, you go into a plan with every intention of taking it out, so no matter what, someone is going to pay for your consumption. That person might just be you or it might be other people with the insurance company but either way it doesn't make sense to allow someone who is definitely going to be taking more than they put in into a policy. It's not like the case of wanting insurance against a chance illness or disease where you might pay for other people or other people might pay for you. If the insurance company foots the bill to you, it's irrelevant and you might as well have just paid for it directly from a pharmacy. If it's other people who want employer offered insurance that foot your bill, it is wrong that they are being forced to pay for your happiness and it's really not any different than the government (tax payers) footing your bill.
It will be a while before I respond to any more posts.
On March 03 2012 08:05 Euronyme wrote: Hmph. I thought this whole thing with resentment towards birth control was a catholic thing.
I don't have resentment towards birth control. I have resentment towards government meddling into things it has no business in and the violation of individual rights.
On March 03 2012 05:28 mastergriggy wrote: I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Coming from the south, most pregnancies are caused because the people having sex are idiots. No exaggeration, no blame gaming here, they are stupid. "The last pill you take lasts a month" is a common belief around here, in one case the girl's mother told her that. Either they don't think birth control works, or they simply think they don't need it for some amazing reason. Most of the time I'm certain it never crosses their mind, though.
In short, misconceptions, both about birth control and pregnancy in general, not because of any failure of the educational system, but because of a short-sighted and inconsiderate way of thinking, are responsible for the high number of teen pregnancies.
I mean, seriously, even if all they ever told us in high school was "don't stick it in or you'll get pregnant", most of the people walk out of class thinking the exact opposite.
On March 03 2012 08:21 Mortality wrote: This thread seems like more of an attempt to complain about those dirty nasty Republican bastards than any kind of serious discussion or debate.
On March 03 2012 05:28 mastergriggy wrote: I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Coming from the south, most pregnancies are caused because the people having sex are idiots. No exaggeration, no blame gaming here, they are stupid. "The last pill you take lasts a month" is a common belief around here, in one case the girl's mother told her that. Either they don't think birth control works, or they simply think they don't need it for some amazing reason. Most of the time I'm certain it never crosses their mind, though.
In short, misconceptions, both about birth control and pregnancy in general, not because of any failure of the educational system, but because of a short-sighted and inconsiderate way of thinking, are responsible for the high number of teen pregnancies.
I mean, seriously, even if all they ever told us in high school was "don't stick it in or you'll get pregnant", most of the people walk out of class thinking the exact opposite.
Those people probably won't be the kind of people who's jobs come with any insurance at all.
hmmm, the debate isnt about what the woman can do, it is about what the employer is required to offer. if any employer doesnt want to offer something that is against their religion, more power to them. the female can obtain separate insurance, or purchase birth control separately.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
Abortion and birth control are very different mate.
- Abortion is a legal procedure in the US and it should be in my opinion. If a woman is raped or cannot carry the child due to it causing her to die when she gives birth she should be able to choose to do what she wishes with her own body. The government and religious organizations should not be able to dictate that. There are of course many situations where pregnancy is just caused by carelessness, but that is just one of the unfortunate side effects of protecting the other situations. In the end, do we really want to leave it up to the government to investigate and badger women on why they want to get a medical procedure?
- The Blunt amendment is a joke. Allowing employers to object to anything in insurance plans based on any moral objection is laughable. You may think it's a good idea now, but when your employer starts cutting your insurance due to them trying to cut costs and cloaking it in "moral grounds" you won't be happy.
- The Church is ignorant in saying that Viagra is allowed but Birth Control pills should not be. Viagra can be used for other medical purposes they argue, while Birth Control pills can be used for other (and more serious) medical purposes as well such as ovarian cysts and anemia. If they feel so strongly about how their employees should be having sex, why are they not hiring only married men and women and barring them from purchasing condoms with their money.
- Finally, Rush Limbaugh is simply a jackass. There is no reason to call the woman a slut. He's simply a shock jock who says stupid things. If you have a disagreement with someone over political issues, that doesn't mean you should just resort to petty name calling, yet this is all he ever does like a 10 year old child.
On March 03 2012 08:21 Mortality wrote: This thread seems like more of an attempt to complain about those dirty nasty Republican bastards than any kind of serious discussion or debate.
As someone who doesn't identify with either party in the US, the fact that one of the most outspoken and widely recognized names among the Republican party is calling a woman a slut for wanting birth control makes the entire party look bad.
Regardless, I feel that a discussion like this should be devoid of political ties. There are people who have a brain, who are compassionate, or who have common sense and these people feel that women should have a right to birth control. Then there are people who are either callous, deeply tied into some sort of religious fervor, or who simply like controlling people's personal lives and it is these people who oppose birth control.
I don't think most Republicans are against birth control. It's just a shame that some of the biggest names among the party are so outspoken about it.
On March 03 2012 08:49 Quelex wrote: Just touching on a few points in this:
- Abortion is a legal procedure in the US and it should be in my opinion. If a woman is raped or cannot carry the child due to it causing her to die when she gives birth she should be able to choose to do what she wishes with her own body. The government and religious organizations should not be able to dictate that. There are of course many situations where pregnancy is just caused by carelessness, but that is just one of the unfortunate side effects of protecting the other situations. In the end, do we really want to leave it up to the government to investigate and badger women on why they want to get a medical procedure?
- The Blunt amendment is a joke. Allowing employers to object to anything in insurance plans based on any moral objection is laughable. You may think it's a good idea now, but when your employer starts cutting your insurance due to them trying to cut costs and cloaking it in "moral grounds" you won't be happy.
- The Church is ignorant in saying that Viagra is allowed but Birth Control pills should not be. Viagra can be used for other medical purposes they argue, while Birth Control pills can be used for other (and more serious) medical purposes as well such as ovarian cysts and anemia. If they feel so strongly about how their employees should be having sex, why are they not hiring only married men and women and barring them from purchasing condoms with their money.
- Finally, Rush Limbaugh is simply a jackass. There is no reason to call the woman a slut. He's simply a shock jock who says stupid things. If you have a disagreement with someone over political issues, that doesn't mean you should just resort to petty name calling, yet this is all he ever does like a 10 year old child.
1. this isnt about abortion. 2. forcing people to do things that is against firmly held religious beliefs is not good policy. 3. one promotes conception, one doesnt. one is against their rules, one isnt. afaik. that isnt ignorant. and the purpose of the bill is not to prevent sex (at least directly), its to prevent them from having to violate their own religious beliefs. 4. agreed. rush limbaugh is a tool.
On March 03 2012 08:21 Mortality wrote: This thread seems like more of an attempt to complain about those dirty nasty Republican bastards than any kind of serious discussion or debate.
As someone who doesn't identify with either party in the US, the fact that one of the most outspoken and widely recognized names among the Republican party is calling a woman a slut for wanting birth control makes the entire party look bad.
Regardless, I feel that a discussion like this should be devoid of political ties. There are people who have a brain, who are compassionate, or who have common sense and these people feel that women should have a right to birth control. Then there are people who are either callous, deeply tied into some sort of religious fervor, or who simply like controlling people's personal lives and it is these people who oppose birth control.
I don't think most Republicans are against birth control. It's just a shame that some of the biggest names among the party are so outspoken about it.
This thread is not about the right to birth control! Why do people keep talking about it like it is? This thread is about forcing employer offered insurance plans to include contraception which is a new thing that Obama is forcing on employers. It's a shame though, that the Republicans attacked it based on the 1st amendment and not it's violation of the rights of all employers and it's impracticality.
On March 03 2012 08:05 Euronyme wrote: Hmph. I thought this whole thing with resentment towards birth control was a catholic thing.
I don't have resentment towards birth control. I have resentment towards government meddling into things it has no business in and the violation of individual rights.
On March 03 2012 08:05 Euronyme wrote: Hmph. I thought this whole thing with resentment towards birth control was a catholic thing.
I don't have resentment towards birth control. I have resentment towards government meddling into things it has no business in and the violation of individual rights.
So you're an anarchist?
more likely libertarian. i agree. government should have limited involvement in our lives like it was always intended.
On March 03 2012 08:21 Mortality wrote: This thread seems like more of an attempt to complain about those dirty nasty Republican bastards than any kind of serious discussion or debate.
As someone who doesn't identify with either party in the US, the fact that one of the most outspoken and widely recognized names among the Republican party is calling a woman a slut for wanting birth control makes the entire party look bad.
Regardless, I feel that a discussion like this should be devoid of political ties. There are people who have a brain, who are compassionate, or who have common sense and these people feel that women should have a right to birth control. Then there are people who are either callous, deeply tied into some sort of religious fervor, or who simply like controlling people's personal lives and it is these people who oppose birth control.
I don't think most Republicans are against birth control. It's just a shame that some of the biggest names among the party are so outspoken about it.
This thread is not about the right to birth control! Why do people keep talking about it like it is? This thread is about forcing employer offered insurance plans to include contraception which is a new thing that Obama is forcing on employers. It's a shame though, that the Republicans attacked it based on the 1st amendment and not it's violation of the rights of all employers and it's impracticality.
Probably because birth control is really fucking expensive. I don't know if the current solution is the best one I just know that birth control should be more readily available for those who want it.
The argument of whether or not it's a right is pretty important because if it is a woman's right to birth control then it needs to be affordable (i.e., it needs to actually be an available option). It's the same thing as when people argued that obviously humans have a right to proper health care but then argue against any form of system that would make health care cheaper. You either believe that people have these rights and thus suggest possible solutions to make it affordable or you don't believe people have medical care rights. Saying women have a right to birth control, then opposing a bill that would give them those rights without offering any sort of realistic alternative is a tad hypocritical to say the least.
On March 03 2012 08:55 dAPhREAk wrote: 1. this isnt about abortion. 2. forcing people to do things that is against firmly held religious beliefs is not good policy. 3. one promotes conception, one doesnt. one is against their rules, one isnt. afaik. that isnt ignorant. and the purpose of the bill is not to prevent sex (at least directly), its to prevent them from having to violate their own religious beliefs. 4. agreed. rush limbaugh is a tool.
1. Actually it is partially about abortion since it is one of the things that would be required to be covered. Also, members (such as the one who was oddly warned for his post that was quoted above) were discussing the legitimacy of it. 2. The Blunt Amendment doesn't simply cover religious employers, and I would argue that the mandate is good policy in that regard. 3. I feel they are ignorant of the consequences when it comes to Viagra but are overly mindful of the consequences of birth control. Should celibate woman be denied the coverage of birth control pills to prevent certain medical conditions by her employer when fertilization was never an issue?
On March 03 2012 08:55 dAPhREAk wrote: 1. this isnt about abortion. 2. forcing people to do things that is against firmly held religious beliefs is not good policy. 3. one promotes conception, one doesnt. one is against their rules, one isnt. afaik. that isnt ignorant. and the purpose of the bill is not to prevent sex (at least directly), its to prevent them from having to violate their own religious beliefs. 4. agreed. rush limbaugh is a tool.
1. Actually it is partially about abortion since it is one of the things that would be required to be covered. Also, members (such as the one who was oddly warned for his post that was quoted above) were discussing the legitimacy of it. 2. The Blunt Amendment doesn't simply cover religious employers, and I would argue that the mandate is good policy in that regard. 3. I feel they are ignorant of the consequences when it comes to Viagra but are overly mindful of the consequences of birth control. Should celibate woman be denied the coverage of birth control pills to prevent certain medical conditions by her employer when fertilization was never an issue?
1. the title disagrees, and the guy who brought it up was warned. 3. im not catholic, which i assume is the main proponent, but their rules preclude birth control because it prevents contraception. viagra does the opposite, so i see no problem with their position. your question is interesting, and i dont know the church's position on it, but i highly doubt that 1 in a million (or maybe less) chance is a real question in this debate.
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?
One is the religious- no-one seems to be personally arguing except on theoretical grounds of 'freedom of religion' This one's too hard to argue properly given TL's policy. But basically, I blame the Stoics and there is not a shred of text that talks about contraception one way or the other- even if you're applying the principles of the text.
Two is libertarian- I could come up with medical benefits, and cost savings for the labour force until I'm blue in the face. But what it always boils down to- is the government involved somehow? Yes. Then it can't happen. Everything turns into a debate against libertarianism as it is the more fundamental disagreement.
Edit And I don't really care if Rush is trolling, I disagree with people that make fun of him for being overwheight etc. But I don't see him as an intellectual heavy weight for conservatism. Bombastic is more the word I would use.
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.
I don't know if I understand why birth control would be an issue. For example, abortion is a very hotly debated topic, and I think that if one side truly believes it is murder, I can see why they wouldn't want other people doing it. I'm not going to suggest either side is right or wrong, that is just one side of the argument. Now with birth control, is it that they don't want other people... not having kids? Now I don't think any side of the argument believes that birth control is really hurting anyone. Do they? If so I'd like to hear other people thoughts on it. (not on abortion, leave that stuff out of here, this isn't the time/place)
On March 03 2012 08:49 Quelex wrote: Just touching on a few points in this:
- Abortion is a legal procedure in the US and it should be in my opinion. If a woman is raped or cannot carry the child due to it causing her to die when she gives birth she should be able to choose to do what she wishes with her own body. The government and religious organizations should not be able to dictate that. There are of course many situations where pregnancy is just caused by carelessness, but that is just one of the unfortunate side effects of protecting the other situations. In the end, do we really want to leave it up to the government to investigate and badger women on why they want to get a medical procedure?
In that case "abortion" should be qualified. Pregnancy due to irresponsibility should not qualify for abortion. The law should stipulate exceptions to this, such as what you say, rape or physical incapacity to carry pregnancy and give birth. Even physical capacity is complex,so I say limit it to the medically tested (I don't know how, but I guess doctors and experts do) capacity of the body to undergo the procedure of carrying another body for 9 months and delivering it, and not psychological (simply because she think she is not ready) or she has other plans yet, in which case she and her partner should have made sure she does not get pregnant (read: contraception).
On March 03 2012 08:49 Quelex wrote: Just touching on a few points in this:
- Abortion is a legal procedure in the US and it should be in my opinion. If a woman is raped or cannot carry the child due to it causing her to die when she gives birth she should be able to choose to do what she wishes with her own body. The government and religious organizations should not be able to dictate that. There are of course many situations where pregnancy is just caused by carelessness, but that is just one of the unfortunate side effects of protecting the other situations. In the end, do we really want to leave it up to the government to investigate and badger women on why they want to get a medical procedure?
In that case "abortion" should be qualified. Pregnancy due to irresponsibility should not qualify for abortion. The law should stipulate exceptions to this, such as what you say, rape or physical incapacity to carry pregnancy and give birth. Even physical capacity is complex,so I say limit it to the medically tested (I don't know how, but I guess doctors and experts do) capacity of the body to undergo the procedure of carrying another body for 9 months and delivering it, and not psychological (simply because she think she is not ready) or she has other plans yet, in which case she and her partner should have made sure she does not get pregnant (read: contraception).
LOL at your name...the whole premise of Roe V Wade was the right to privacy, and I think demanding to know the details of how a woman got pregnant violates that right. In any event, we arent talking about abortions
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient.
And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason.
But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself.
Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic.
I don't believe that you are correct in that insurance companies won't make any money off of it. Not everyone needs birth-control therefore the costs are spread out just like insurance is meant to work. A 25 year old female pays into the insurance fund so that she can get birth control and ob-gyn visits. A 60 year old male pays into the insurance fund so that he can get prostate cancer treatments. Different people pay into the insurance funds in order to get different treatment. I'm not sure why you think insurance companies need to sell contraceptives in order to make a profit. There are plenty of insurance policies that cover contraceptives and as far as I know they're doing just fine.
As far as idealogy vs reason I don't want to derail the thread, but all I was saying was that I doubt most republicans really care that much about providing contraception. But it is on the social conservative idealogy list and so it doesn't matter what does and does not make sense they have to be against it.
It's because contraception is fundamentally different from things like prostate cancer treatments. Contraception is something that any woman can choose to consume. Hell, even if they don't want it, they can just take it and sell it to a friend who doesn't have it depending on the kind and how it is administered. Prostate cancer treatments, on the other hand, are not something that you go into an insurance policy, with the intention to take out, but something that you might take out if by chance you develop prostate cancer. A man pays into the policy, with chances being that he will lose money in the long run (otherwise, the company could never make money), in exchange for insurance against chance occurrences (breaking a bone, developing cancer). If you do end up taking out more than you put in, the money to pay for that comes from the premiums of people who didn't get all that sick and paid more to the insurance company than they received. When you got into it at the beggining, there was a chance that you would pay for other people's bills and a chance that other people would pay for your bills. If you want want contraception, you go into a plan with every intention of taking it out, so no matter what, someone is going to pay for your consumption. That person might just be you or it might be other people with the insurance company but either way it doesn't make sense to allow someone who is definitely going to be taking more than they put in into a policy. It's not like the case of wanting insurance against a chance illness or disease where you might pay for other people or other people might pay for you. If the insurance company foots the bill to you, it's irrelevant and you might as well have just paid for it directly from a pharmacy. If it's other people who want employer offered insurance that foot your bill, it is wrong that they are being forced to pay for your happiness and it's really not any different than the government (tax payers) footing your bill.
It will be a while before I respond to any more posts.
But if your only argument against contraception is on a cost basis then I can guarantee you insurances want to provide women with contraceptives. It is much much much cheaper to provide contraceptives then it is to provide obstetric services. that is why insurance companies are staying out of this whole debate. They have 0 problems with providing contraceptives to women. It's the catholic church that doesn't want to do it because it violates their dogma.
On March 03 2012 06:23 meadbert wrote: [quote] Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient.
And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason.
But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself.
Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic.
I don't believe that you are correct in that insurance companies won't make any money off of it. Not everyone needs birth-control therefore the costs are spread out just like insurance is meant to work. A 25 year old female pays into the insurance fund so that she can get birth control and ob-gyn visits. A 60 year old male pays into the insurance fund so that he can get prostate cancer treatments. Different people pay into the insurance funds in order to get different treatment. I'm not sure why you think insurance companies need to sell contraceptives in order to make a profit. There are plenty of insurance policies that cover contraceptives and as far as I know they're doing just fine.
As far as idealogy vs reason I don't want to derail the thread, but all I was saying was that I doubt most republicans really care that much about providing contraception. But it is on the social conservative idealogy list and so it doesn't matter what does and does not make sense they have to be against it.
It's because contraception is fundamentally different from things like prostate cancer treatments. Contraception is something that any woman can choose to consume. Hell, even if they don't want it, they can just take it and sell it to a friend who doesn't have it depending on the kind and how it is administered. Prostate cancer treatments, on the other hand, are not something that you go into an insurance policy, with the intention to take out, but something that you might take out if by chance you develop prostate cancer. A man pays into the policy, with chances being that he will lose money in the long run (otherwise, the company could never make money), in exchange for insurance against chance occurrences (breaking a bone, developing cancer). If you do end up taking out more than you put in, the money to pay for that comes from the premiums of people who didn't get all that sick and paid more to the insurance company than they received. When you got into it at the beggining, there was a chance that you would pay for other people's bills and a chance that other people would pay for your bills. If you want want contraception, you go into a plan with every intention of taking it out, so no matter what, someone is going to pay for your consumption. That person might just be you or it might be other people with the insurance company but either way it doesn't make sense to allow someone who is definitely going to be taking more than they put in into a policy. It's not like the case of wanting insurance against a chance illness or disease where you might pay for other people or other people might pay for you. If the insurance company foots the bill to you, it's irrelevant and you might as well have just paid for it directly from a pharmacy. If it's other people who want employer offered insurance that foot your bill, it is wrong that they are being forced to pay for your happiness and it's really not any different than the government (tax payers) footing your bill.
It will be a while before I respond to any more posts.
But if your only argument against contraception is on a cost basis then I can guarantee you insurances want to provide women with contraceptives. It is much much much cheaper to provide contraceptives then it is to provide obstetric services. that is why insurance companies are staying out of this whole debate. They have 0 problems with providing contraceptives to women. It's the catholic church that doesn't want to do it because it violates their dogma.
Why didn't insurance companies already provide them? If they would save money, they wouldn't need the government to tell them to do it, right?
On March 03 2012 06:23 meadbert wrote: [quote] Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient.
And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason.
But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself.
Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic.
I don't believe that you are correct in that insurance companies won't make any money off of it. Not everyone needs birth-control therefore the costs are spread out just like insurance is meant to work. A 25 year old female pays into the insurance fund so that she can get birth control and ob-gyn visits. A 60 year old male pays into the insurance fund so that he can get prostate cancer treatments. Different people pay into the insurance funds in order to get different treatment. I'm not sure why you think insurance companies need to sell contraceptives in order to make a profit. There are plenty of insurance policies that cover contraceptives and as far as I know they're doing just fine.
As far as idealogy vs reason I don't want to derail the thread, but all I was saying was that I doubt most republicans really care that much about providing contraception. But it is on the social conservative idealogy list and so it doesn't matter what does and does not make sense they have to be against it.
It's because contraception is fundamentally different from things like prostate cancer treatments. Contraception is something that any woman can choose to consume. Hell, even if they don't want it, they can just take it and sell it to a friend who doesn't have it depending on the kind and how it is administered. Prostate cancer treatments, on the other hand, are not something that you go into an insurance policy, with the intention to take out, but something that you might take out if by chance you develop prostate cancer. A man pays into the policy, with chances being that he will lose money in the long run (otherwise, the company could never make money), in exchange for insurance against chance occurrences (breaking a bone, developing cancer). If you do end up taking out more than you put in, the money to pay for that comes from the premiums of people who didn't get all that sick and paid more to the insurance company than they received. When you got into it at the beggining, there was a chance that you would pay for other people's bills and a chance that other people would pay for your bills. If you want want contraception, you go into a plan with every intention of taking it out, so no matter what, someone is going to pay for your consumption. That person might just be you or it might be other people with the insurance company but either way it doesn't make sense to allow someone who is definitely going to be taking more than they put in into a policy. It's not like the case of wanting insurance against a chance illness or disease where you might pay for other people or other people might pay for you. If the insurance company foots the bill to you, it's irrelevant and you might as well have just paid for it directly from a pharmacy. If it's other people who want employer offered insurance that foot your bill, it is wrong that they are being forced to pay for your happiness and it's really not any different than the government (tax payers) footing your bill.
It will be a while before I respond to any more posts.
But if your only argument against contraception is on a cost basis then I can guarantee you insurances want to provide women with contraceptives. It is much much much cheaper to provide contraceptives then it is to provide obstetric services. that is why insurance companies are staying out of this whole debate. They have 0 problems with providing contraceptives to women. It's the catholic church that doesn't want to do it because it violates their dogma.
Then why aren't they doing it already? If they are, why do we need to force them on top of their own choices? I guess the government knows how to turn profits for companies than the companies themselves.
On March 03 2012 08:05 Euronyme wrote: Hmph. I thought this whole thing with resentment towards birth control was a catholic thing.
I don't have resentment towards birth control. I have resentment towards government meddling into things it has no business in and the violation of individual rights.
So you're an anarchist?
No. I believe that there are things in which the government has every business participating in and that it is possible for government to exist without violating individual rights. I don't want the government to violate individual rights or meddle in places it has no business therefore I am an anarchist, is a huge and unreasonable leap.
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.
well, before i say anything i'll state that I'm an atheist. It bothers me that the government is pushing religious institutions into going against there morals/faith by making them pay for peoples contraception/abortion..ect Although i do not agree with religion, I believe there is liberty at stake in this debate. Woman should have every right to choose, but with the foot on the other shoe... shouldn't religion as well? It's not as if there are only religious hospitals ;d but outside of that one tidbit i'm in support of the contraception/abortion
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient.
And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason.
But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself.
Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic.
I don't believe that you are correct in that insurance companies won't make any money off of it. Not everyone needs birth-control therefore the costs are spread out just like insurance is meant to work. A 25 year old female pays into the insurance fund so that she can get birth control and ob-gyn visits. A 60 year old male pays into the insurance fund so that he can get prostate cancer treatments. Different people pay into the insurance funds in order to get different treatment. I'm not sure why you think insurance companies need to sell contraceptives in order to make a profit. There are plenty of insurance policies that cover contraceptives and as far as I know they're doing just fine.
As far as idealogy vs reason I don't want to derail the thread, but all I was saying was that I doubt most republicans really care that much about providing contraception. But it is on the social conservative idealogy list and so it doesn't matter what does and does not make sense they have to be against it.
It's because contraception is fundamentally different from things like prostate cancer treatments. Contraception is something that any woman can choose to consume. Hell, even if they don't want it, they can just take it and sell it to a friend who doesn't have it depending on the kind and how it is administered. Prostate cancer treatments, on the other hand, are not something that you go into an insurance policy, with the intention to take out, but something that you might take out if by chance you develop prostate cancer. A man pays into the policy, with chances being that he will lose money in the long run (otherwise, the company could never make money), in exchange for insurance against chance occurrences (breaking a bone, developing cancer). If you do end up taking out more than you put in, the money to pay for that comes from the premiums of people who didn't get all that sick and paid more to the insurance company than they received. When you got into it at the beggining, there was a chance that you would pay for other people's bills and a chance that other people would pay for your bills. If you want want contraception, you go into a plan with every intention of taking it out, so no matter what, someone is going to pay for your consumption. That person might just be you or it might be other people with the insurance company but either way it doesn't make sense to allow someone who is definitely going to be taking more than they put in into a policy. It's not like the case of wanting insurance against a chance illness or disease where you might pay for other people or other people might pay for you. If the insurance company foots the bill to you, it's irrelevant and you might as well have just paid for it directly from a pharmacy. If it's other people who want employer offered insurance that foot your bill, it is wrong that they are being forced to pay for your happiness and it's really not any different than the government (tax payers) footing your bill.
It will be a while before I respond to any more posts.
But if your only argument against contraception is on a cost basis then I can guarantee you insurances want to provide women with contraceptives. It is much much much cheaper to provide contraceptives then it is to provide obstetric services. that is why insurance companies are staying out of this whole debate. They have 0 problems with providing contraceptives to women. It's the catholic church that doesn't want to do it because it violates their dogma.
Then why aren't they doing it already? If they are, why do we need to force them on top of their own choices? I guess the government knows how to turn profits for companies than the companies themselves.
They are doing it already. Most insurances provide contraceptive services. However before things like catholic hospitals did not. Obama passed a law that rquired everyone to do so no matter if it was against their religion. The catholics got mad and so Obama pushed it back onto the insurance companies. The insurance companies are not complaining but the Archbishops of the Unioted states are. That's where the arguments are at
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient.
And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason.
But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself.
Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic.
I don't believe that you are correct in that insurance companies won't make any money off of it. Not everyone needs birth-control therefore the costs are spread out just like insurance is meant to work. A 25 year old female pays into the insurance fund so that she can get birth control and ob-gyn visits. A 60 year old male pays into the insurance fund so that he can get prostate cancer treatments. Different people pay into the insurance funds in order to get different treatment. I'm not sure why you think insurance companies need to sell contraceptives in order to make a profit. There are plenty of insurance policies that cover contraceptives and as far as I know they're doing just fine.
As far as idealogy vs reason I don't want to derail the thread, but all I was saying was that I doubt most republicans really care that much about providing contraception. But it is on the social conservative idealogy list and so it doesn't matter what does and does not make sense they have to be against it.
It's because contraception is fundamentally different from things like prostate cancer treatments. Contraception is something that any woman can choose to consume. Hell, even if they don't want it, they can just take it and sell it to a friend who doesn't have it depending on the kind and how it is administered. Prostate cancer treatments, on the other hand, are not something that you go into an insurance policy, with the intention to take out, but something that you might take out if by chance you develop prostate cancer. A man pays into the policy, with chances being that he will lose money in the long run (otherwise, the company could never make money), in exchange for insurance against chance occurrences (breaking a bone, developing cancer). If you do end up taking out more than you put in, the money to pay for that comes from the premiums of people who didn't get all that sick and paid more to the insurance company than they received. When you got into it at the beggining, there was a chance that you would pay for other people's bills and a chance that other people would pay for your bills. If you want want contraception, you go into a plan with every intention of taking it out, so no matter what, someone is going to pay for your consumption. That person might just be you or it might be other people with the insurance company but either way it doesn't make sense to allow someone who is definitely going to be taking more than they put in into a policy. It's not like the case of wanting insurance against a chance illness or disease where you might pay for other people or other people might pay for you. If the insurance company foots the bill to you, it's irrelevant and you might as well have just paid for it directly from a pharmacy. If it's other people who want employer offered insurance that foot your bill, it is wrong that they are being forced to pay for your happiness and it's really not any different than the government (tax payers) footing your bill.
It will be a while before I respond to any more posts.
But if your only argument against contraception is on a cost basis then I can guarantee you insurances want to provide women with contraceptives. It is much much much cheaper to provide contraceptives then it is to provide obstetric services. that is why insurance companies are staying out of this whole debate. They have 0 problems with providing contraceptives to women. It's the catholic church that doesn't want to do it because it violates their dogma.
Then why aren't they doing it already? If they are, why do we need to force them on top of their own choices? I guess the government knows how to turn profits for companies than the companies themselves.
They are doing it already. Most insurances provide contraceptive services. However before things like catholic hospitals did not. Obama passed a law that rquired everyone to do so no matter if it was against their religion. The catholics got mad and so Obama pushed it back onto the insurance companies. The insurance companies are not complaining but the Archbishops of the Unioted states are. That's where the arguments are at
This is true, but what the Blunt Bill proposed was that any employer, religiously affiliated or not, could decide to eliminate coverage of birth control or any other medical treatment on religious or moral grounds.That is what I think upset people more than just religious institutions not providing contraception coverage.
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).
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations.
Oh, come on... that's a wildly sensationalist post and you know it. If you want to discuss the morality of abortion, try not to paint every woman as a slut and a murderer.
Women are not forced to have sex. I do not see why people don't have to live with consequences anymore.
Women are not forced to have sex. Except when they are.
In other news, men don't get pregnant. If they did, there would be no debate about abortion -- it would be legal, everywhere.
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.
On March 03 2012 10:23 VPCursed wrote: well, before i say anything i'll state that I'm an atheist. It bothers me that the government is pushing religious institutions into going against there morals/faith by making them pay for peoples contraception/abortion..ect Although i do not agree with religion, I believe there is liberty at stake in this debate. Woman should have every right to choose, but with the foot on the other shoe... shouldn't religion as well? It's not as if there are only religious hospitals ;d but outside of that one tidbit i'm in support of the contraception/abortion
I agree with this. I don't see why businesses should have to subsidize contraceptives when there is access to free BC basically everywhere in the US (read: planned parenthood) and in countries with government-funded health care, what is the argument for having the taxpayer subsidize the recreational sex of others... just weird.
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.
On March 03 2012 10:23 VPCursed wrote: well, before i say anything i'll state that I'm an atheist. It bothers me that the government is pushing religious institutions into going against there morals/faith by making them pay for peoples contraception/abortion..ect Although i do not agree with religion, I believe there is liberty at stake in this debate. Woman should have every right to choose, but with the foot on the other shoe... shouldn't religion as well? It's not as if there are only religious hospitals ;d but outside of that one tidbit i'm in support of the contraception/abortion
I agree with this. I don't see why businesses should have to subsidize contraceptives when there is access to free BC basically everywhere in the US (read: planned parenthood) and in countries with government-funded health care, what is the argument for having the taxpayer subsidize the recreational sex of others... just weird.
From Planned Parenthoods website on how to get access to birth control
First, you’ll need to get a prescription. Visit a Planned Parenthood health center, a clinic, or a private health care provider for a prescription. Your health care provider will discuss your medical history with you, check your blood pressure, and give you any other medical exam that you may need. If you need an exam, it may cost about $35–$250.
Birth control pills may be purchased with a prescription at a drugstore or clinic. They cost about $15–$50 a month.
Planned Parenthood works to make health care accessible and affordable. Some health centers are able to charge according to income. Most accept health insurance. If you qualify, Medicaid or other state programs may lower your health care costs.
Call your local Planned Parenthood health center to get specific information on costs.
There is not access to "free" birth control, it still costs the person
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.
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.
This is about as well as anyone has summed it up. Cost has nothing to with it and morality has everything to do with it. The government is saying that Catholic morality should not be imposed on those who do not practice their religion. Catholic church says it does. Simple as that
On March 03 2012 11:10 Defacer wrote: Doesn't this open the floodgates to employers/institutions be able to deny employees all kinds of coverage, on moral grounds?
How slippery does this slope get?
Of course, I don't see how you could defend forcing Christina Scientists to provide any kind of insurance if you say that it's ok for Catholics to pick and choose what they believe is important. But more then that this whole slippery slope argument of freedom of religion will eventually lead to a father being allowed to stone his daughter because she was a harlot.
On March 03 2012 06:28 OsoVega wrote: Except that birth control is a low and chosen cost. Insurance is about low likelihood, high cost things. It makes zero sense to include birth control with insurance at all.
That's not what insurance is about at all. Insurance is about risk pooling. What the expected payoff or risk ratios values are, is irrelevant.
I should also point out that men do stupid stunts in their teens. Men play sports that cause broken wrists, broken arms, and broken legs. Why should women pay for the sports related injuries incurred by men when they're not as likely to incur them?
If this was religion based/catholic I am sure they would impose the parties involved would have to be marry to one another. But I can bet you this is not stated in the bill at all. The thing with morality it is if it is not absolute truth then anyone can define it themselves you cant argue this because people will define things differently ie. when life has come to be, freedom of the women, killing a child. you can argue anything as long as you define your terms to your liking.
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.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations.
Oh, come on... that's a wildly sensationalist post and you know it. If you want to discuss the morality of abortion, try not to paint every woman as a slut and a murderer.
Women are not forced to have sex. I do not see why people don't have to live with consequences anymore.
Next time you break an arm or become sick, don't go and see a doctor, because it is obviously just due to you not being careful enough or having high enough hygenic standards and thuss you should suffer the consequences...
You could at least attempt to bring up some of the somewhat valid arguments against abortion if you really wanted to open that can of worms....
Ugh, so disgusting that Rush Limbaugh is allowed to say these things and get payed for it for it.
Frankly, this is just another reason for me not to care about politics. What this says about political discourse is that it's exactly what we all know it is: absurd, useless, polarized bullshit. It's wholly unreasonable to argue about what Limbaugh says because it's meaningless, inflammatory dribble with no purpose but to piss people off and promote a political agenda.
On March 03 2012 11:10 Defacer wrote: Doesn't this open the floodgates to employers/institutions be able to deny employees all kinds of coverage, on moral grounds?
How slippery does this slope get?
not really. you cant just make up moral grounds, you need to have some support for them. birth control has been a rule of the church for years, its not a new invention.
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.
Also, notice a couple other things about this so-called US debate/issue:
1) most of those "debating" are men 2) many men are clearly demonstrating a clear misunderstanding/complete ignorance of female reproductive health... 3) but also a completely retarded, non-factual fantasy of female sexuality (demonstrated by such idiotic phrases such as "keep it in the pants" just wanting "to have fun with her boyfriend or whatever")
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.
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.
Also, notice a couple other things about this so-called US debate/issue:
1) most of those "debating" are men 2) many men are clearly demonstrating a clear misunderstanding/complete ignorance of female reproductive health... 3) but also a completely retarded, non-factual fantasy of female sexuality (demonstrated by such idiotic phrases such as "keep it in the pants" just wanting "to have fun with her boyfriend or whatever")
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 or right-winged religious extremists who would be perfectly happy seeing women in the US where 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.
I'm tempted to agree with you. You'll never see a (sane) woman argue that the pill should be made harder to access. It's unimaginable that men would argue this, either, without some absurd and likely religious ulterior motive for it.
Rush Limbaugh.... This man is a joke. I am suprised that Republicans tolerate him as a mouthpiece for their politics. I mean, his viewers/listeners/supporters can't be Democrats.
On March 03 2012 11:06 0neder wrote: It is perfectly reasonable to hold the opinion that condoms and pills do not warrant subsidization.
You can make an argument for that view, yes. Particularly with Limbaugh, though, there was no argument, just idiocy.
This is true, as well. Limbaugh didn't say "It's absurd that anyone pay for someone's contraception but themselves," which would be a valid libertarian opinion. He said "she's a slut." It's different.
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.
Also, notice a couple other things about this so-called US debate/issue:
1) most of those "debating" are men 2) many men are clearly demonstrating a clear misunderstanding/complete ignorance of female reproductive health... 3) but also a completely retarded, non-factual fantasy of female sexuality (demonstrated by such idiotic phrases such as "keep it in the pants" just wanting "to have fun with her boyfriend or whatever")
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
Quite a few people explicitly mentioned that the pill should be covered for medical reasons, myself included.
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.
Also, notice a couple other things about this so-called US debate/issue:
1) most of those "debating" are men 2) many men are clearly demonstrating a clear misunderstanding/complete ignorance of female reproductive health... 3) but also a completely retarded, non-factual fantasy of female sexuality (demonstrated by such idiotic phrases such as "keep it in the pants" just wanting "to have fun with her boyfriend or whatever")
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
its simple enough. just allow birth control where necessary for medical need, but exclude it where not medically necessary. the doctor decides what is medically necessary.
edit: just read your "i.e.," such ad hominem is neither true nor necessary.
On March 03 2012 12:17 -fj. wrote: for gods sakes subsidize it, you don't even need to argue and moralize and etc. there is one very economical and hard to argue reason:
less babies is obviously a good idea at this point, especially unintended babies, so just subsidize it!
Subsidize my video games, internet, and alcohol, that's preventing babies too.
On March 03 2012 12:17 -fj. wrote: for gods sakes subsidize it, you don't even need to argue and moralize and etc. there is one very economical and hard to argue reason:
less babies is obviously a good idea at this point, especially unintended babies, so just subsidize it!
Subsidize my video games, internet, and alcohol, that's preventing babies too.
awesome. WoW, the no. 1 contraceptive in the world.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
lollll wtf seriously in 2012 u write stuff like that?
There shouldnt be any debate about abortion or birth control. its all said and done already. she does what she wants with it. she has the right to take a medecine that prevents cum from turning into babies. You cant do shit about that. Thats what I like in fact.
Looks like he lost a lot of advertisers over this one.
Sleep Train, Sleep Number, Legal Zoom, Citrix, Quicken Loans, and the Cleveland Cavs all pulled ads from his show. 6 companies and possibly more, sort of a big deal.
Looks like he lost a lot of advertisers over this one.
Sleep Train, Sleep Number, Legal Zoom, Citrix, Quicken Loans, and the Cleveland Cavs all pulled ads from his show. 6 companies and possibly more, sort of a big deal.
Nice, that's what I like to see, you say something stupid and unwarranted, you don't get payed.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
Dunno if you're living in the twenty first century or not, but it's actually not a child, in case you didn't know I thought I'd give you a pinch of knowledge. Oh, and also it's a male and female that have to have sex for conception, so maybe the man can keep his pants on too? Or wait, you forgot about those things called equal rights.
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
what? that means i can hurt other people because my <insert random violant religious belief> justifys it?
there are really only two ways you can look at it, either you understand it, or not. would be sad if it would be the latter but it certainly looks like it.
Looks like he lost a lot of advertisers over this one.
Sleep Train, Sleep Number, Legal Zoom, Citrix, Quicken Loans, and the Cleveland Cavs all pulled ads from his show. 6 companies and possibly more, sort of a big deal.
Had no idea sleep train was such a power player lol
But seriously; that's great to see, Rush is an absolutely disgusting hypocritical sensationalist ass... people like him, regardless of political agenda, are what's wrong with this country.
On March 03 2012 05:28 mastergriggy wrote: I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Edit: As someone else earlier pointed out, birth control really isn't all about sex. One of the girls I used to date had periods that would black her out. BC really helped her with that.
Of course people Republicans are against abortion, how else are those unwanted children going to grow up to vote Republican?
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.
First, women don't just use contraceptives so they can have fun with their boyfriends. Second, those same employers who argue against contraceptives for moral reasons have no moral problem with being required to provide viagra in the insurance policy, it's hypocritical, and sexist.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
I cant BELIEVE this user was warned for this post. That is a legitamite point and argument. Sorry that some people see this in black and white and care about an unborn child who is defensless to a mother who wants to kill them. Think if your mom or dad were aborted....YOU WOULDNT EXIST. Every child is special and unique and will do special and unique things throughout their lives, who is to say NO YOU CANT LIVE BECAUSE IM IRRESONSIBLE. Anyone who defends abortion is very blind to the facts. Women get the right to choose but what choice does that leave the baby that WILL become a child and someday an adult with kids and grandkids of their own? Somtimes this world makes me sick.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
I cant BELIEVE this user was warned for this post. That is a legitamite point and argument. Sorry that some people see this in black and white and care about an unborn child who is defensless to a mother who wants to kill them. Think if your mom or dad were aborted....YOU WOULDNT EXIST. Every child is special and unique and will do special and unique things throughout their lives, who is to say NO YOU CANT LIVE BECAUSE IM IRRESONSIBLE. Anyone who defends abortion is very blind to the facts. Women get the right to choose but what choice does that leave the baby that WILL become a child and someday an adult with kids and grandkids of their own? Somtimes this world makes me sick.
People like you make ME sick -.-
If you wanna talk about "looking at the facts," take note of the fact that if your mom and dad had had sex even a few seconds later or at a different angle or had different diets at any point in their lives when they were conceiving you... well, I think we can look to you for the answer to this:
On March 03 2012 13:48 Trazati wrote: YOU WOULDNT EXIST
So, potential babies cannot be people because otherwise you'd be "murdering" unfathomable numbers of people every time you did anything at all.
Also, while we're considering facts, take note that even conceived fetuses are not people any more than pigs or dolphins or, for fuck's sake, amoebas or even viruses. They have no brain function, no humanity. They are leeching, parasitic, greedy chunks of biomass that want nothing more than to murder their host by starving her of nutrients, and taking them all for itself. I'm not making this up. This is developmental biology. Learn it.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
Dunno if you're living in the twenty first century or not, but it's actually not a child, in case you didn't know I thought I'd give you a pinch of knowledge. Oh, and also it's a male and female that have to have sex for conception, so maybe the man can keep his pants on too? Or wait, you forgot about those things called equal rights.
Speaking of equal rights... this law is sexist -.- I don't want to have to pay for condoms... where is my equality damnit!
You can believe whatever you want, that doesn't make it a valid in any way shape or form. ALL it does is make it YOUR (no one elses) belief. It's a pile of cells, plain and simple.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
I cant BELIEVE this user was warned for this post. That is a legitamite point and argument. Sorry that some people see this in black and white and care about an unborn child who is defensless to a mother who wants to kill them. Think if your mom or dad were aborted....YOU WOULDNT EXIST. Every child is special and unique and will do special and unique things throughout their lives, who is to say NO YOU CANT LIVE BECAUSE IM IRRESONSIBLE. Anyone who defends abortion is very blind to the facts. Women get the right to choose but what choice does that leave the baby that WILL become a child and someday an adult with kids and grandkids of their own? Somtimes this world makes me sick.
People like you make ME sick -.-
If you wanna talk about "looking at the facts," take note of the fact that if your mom and dad had had sex even a few seconds later or at a different angle or had different diets at any point in their lives when they were conceiving you... well, I think we can look to you for the answer to this:
On March 03 2012 13:48 Trazati wrote: YOU WOULDNT EXIST
So, potential babies cannot be people because otherwise you'd be "murdering" unfathomable numbers of people every time you did anything at all.
Also, while we're considering facts, take note that even conceived fetuses are not people any more than pigs or dolphins or, for fuck's sake, amoebas or even viruses. They have no brain function, no humanity. They are leeching, parasitic, greedy chunks of biomass that want nothing more than to murder their host by starving her of nutrients, and taking them all for itself. I'm not making this up. This is developmental biology. Learn it.
First of all not having a kid is not killing a kid....My main argument I bring up when talking about abortion is that a fetus WILL become a human being, unless it is stopped. MUST STOP EVIL FETUS FROM LEECHING MY NUTRIENTS LIKE A TAPEWORM. Where are peoples morals ffs.
On March 03 2012 13:28 cydial wrote: I'm fine with abortion, but sometimes the Dad wants to keep the child and he can't do shit about it if the woman wants to get an abortion.
If a potential father doesn't want the baby but the mom does?
Too bad son you're paying child support whether you want to or not.
Maybe because, for a woman, being pregnant is a life altering, body altering, and possibly life threatening condition? Not saying your spin doesn't suck for the guy, but really, look at this from the woman's perspective and its very hard to be too sympathetic to that viewpoint.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
I cant BELIEVE this user was warned for this post. That is a legitamite point and argument. Sorry that some people see this in black and white and care about an unborn child who is defensless to a mother who wants to kill them. Think if your mom or dad were aborted....YOU WOULDNT EXIST. Every child is special and unique and will do special and unique things throughout their lives, who is to say NO YOU CANT LIVE BECAUSE IM IRRESONSIBLE. Anyone who defends abortion is very blind to the facts. Women get the right to choose but what choice does that leave the baby that WILL become a child and someday an adult with kids and grandkids of their own? Somtimes this world makes me sick.
People like you make ME sick -.-
If you wanna talk about "looking at the facts," take note of the fact that if your mom and dad had had sex even a few seconds later or at a different angle or had different diets at any point in their lives when they were conceiving you... well, I think we can look to you for the answer to this:
On March 03 2012 13:48 Trazati wrote: YOU WOULDNT EXIST
So, potential babies cannot be people because otherwise you'd be "murdering" unfathomable numbers of people every time you did anything at all.
Also, while we're considering facts, take note that even conceived fetuses are not people any more than pigs or dolphins or, for fuck's sake, amoebas or even viruses. They have no brain function, no humanity. They are leeching, parasitic, greedy chunks of biomass that want nothing more than to murder their host by starving her of nutrients, and taking them all for itself. I'm not making this up. This is developmental biology. Learn it.
First of all not having a kid is not killing a kid....My main argument I bring up when talking about abortion is that a fetus WILL become a human being, unless it is stopped. MUST STOP EVIL FETUS FROM LEECHING MY NUTRIENTS LIKE A TAPEWORM. Where are peoples morals ffs.
If you went and raped some random girl right now and she got pregnant, that WOULD BECOME A HUMAN BEING if she couldn't get an abortion. According to you, it's immoral of you NOT to go spend literally all of your time impregnating anyone and everyone just because if you don't, you're taking away the possibility of another human being.
I realize that you're saying that once it's started it should be immoral to stop it, but again, it's ABSURD to define a human as "something that will be a human being." A fetus is not conscious. It has no rights. It is not a person. Any claim to its humanity must be based in the fantastic or mystical and thus has no place is scientific or rational argument.
P.S. Next time you start an argument with "first of all," please have a "second of all" to follow it up, so you don't sound like a blubbering idiot rolling his face on his keyboard. That's serious advice, making sense aides your credibility.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
I cant BELIEVE this user was warned for this post. That is a legitamite point and argument. Sorry that some people see this in black and white and care about an unborn child who is defensless to a mother who wants to kill them. Think if your mom or dad were aborted....YOU WOULDNT EXIST. Every child is special and unique and will do special and unique things throughout their lives, who is to say NO YOU CANT LIVE BECAUSE IM IRRESONSIBLE. Anyone who defends abortion is very blind to the facts. Women get the right to choose but what choice does that leave the baby that WILL become a child and someday an adult with kids and grandkids of their own? Somtimes this world makes me sick.
Are you anti-war and anti-death penalty? Because I assure you, there's a bunch or innocent and not-so innocent people with actual names and faces that get murdered all over the world in the name of freedom and justice that you probably don't give two shits about. They all have more in common with you and other humans than a three week-old fetus.
Anti-abortion advocates rely primarily on 'moral authority' for their argument. Well that argument kind of sucks.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
I cant BELIEVE this user was warned for this post. That is a legitamite point and argument. Sorry that some people see this in black and white and care about an unborn child who is defensless to a mother who wants to kill them. Think if your mom or dad were aborted....YOU WOULDNT EXIST. Every child is special and unique and will do special and unique things throughout their lives, who is to say NO YOU CANT LIVE BECAUSE IM IRRESONSIBLE. Anyone who defends abortion is very blind to the facts. Women get the right to choose but what choice does that leave the baby that WILL become a child and someday an adult with kids and grandkids of their own? Somtimes this world makes me sick.
Are you anti-war and anti-death penalty? Because I assure you, there's a bunch or innocent and not-so innocent people with actual names and faces that get murdered all over the world in the name of freedom and justice that you probably don't give two shits about. They all have more in common with you and other humans than a three week-old fetus.
Anti-abortion advocates rely primarily on 'moral authority' for their argument. Well that argument kind of sucks.
I am. However, the government should have absolutely no say in anything related to employee benefits, except by enforcing the terms of the employment contract. Employers should be free to not provide any health benefits, and certainly should be free to provide any kind of health benefit they want. Birth control is not something insurance should even be covering anyway. Insurance is for risk protection, not for everyday medications. Our health care system is so perverted by subsidies, government regulation, corporatism, and medical licensing that nobody can even pinpoint the source of the problem. Get government out of healthcare and this isn't even an issue. People will get what they want to get and the market will provide choices.
I don't understand why people can't view healthcare like any other necessary but market-provided service, like shoes. Everyone needs shoes, but we have a free market in those!
As for being anti-abortion, it doesn't mean you are anti-woman. I still believe that the government has no right to interfere with abortions up to viability. I think that it is the moral duty of the mother to consider the life of her child. It is also perfectly okay for any doctor to refuse to provide any service he feels is morally questionable. It is even okay for any insurer to choose to cover or not to cover any procedure or medication they choose.
See, when you have markets, nobody who opposes abortion will ever have to pay for one if they don't want to. Nobody who wants to pay for them, or wants to get them, will ever be denied one. Birth control is the same thing. Same with euthanasia.
Markets solve problems by providing choices. Governments cause them by taking those choices away.
I don't understand why people can't view healthcare like any other necessary but market-provided service, like shoes. Everyone needs shoes, but we have a free market in those!
The problem is that there are certain public goods that the free market may not provide, but would be beneficial overall if they were provided. Roads, healthcare, research&development, etc. The reason why these items may not be provided by the free market is because they are not necessarily profitable to an individual (even though they may be profitable to society as a whole). So, for example, it may almost never be economical for health insurance agencies to provide care to certain individuals or for certain problems. So we enter a situation in which the market forces may not create competition leading to optimal health insurance plans, but perhaps leads to suboptimal, but highly profitable health insurance plans.
Now perhaps you may say that health insurance providers should never be forced to provide any care that is not profitable. You may even say such a thing is morally wrong. Fair point, but now we have a less healthy population which has much larger ramifications than any individual. If profit and the gain of wealth for individuals is the only purpose of the economy and free market, then I concede that you are correct. However, I do not believe that is the case.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
I cant BELIEVE this user was warned for this post. That is a legitamite point and argument. Sorry that some people see this in black and white and care about an unborn child who is defensless to a mother who wants to kill them. Think if your mom or dad were aborted....YOU WOULDNT EXIST. Every child is special and unique and will do special and unique things throughout their lives, who is to say NO YOU CANT LIVE BECAUSE IM IRRESONSIBLE. Anyone who defends abortion is very blind to the facts. Women get the right to choose but what choice does that leave the baby that WILL become a child and someday an adult with kids and grandkids of their own? Somtimes this world makes me sick.
Are you anti-war and anti-death penalty? Because I assure you, there's a bunch or innocent and not-so innocent people with actual names and faces that get murdered all over the world in the name of freedom and justice that you probably don't give two shits about. They all have more in common with you and other humans than a three week-old fetus.
Anti-abortion advocates rely primarily on 'moral authority' for their argument. Well that argument kind of sucks.
I am. However, the government should have absolutely no say in anything related to employee benefits, except by enforcing the terms of the employment contract. Employers should be free to not provide any health benefits, and certainly should be free to provide any kind of health benefit they want. Birth control is not something insurance should even be covering anyway. Insurance is for risk protection, not for everyday medications. Our health care system is so perverted by subsidies, government regulation, corporatism, and medical licensing that nobody can even pinpoint the source of the problem. Get government out of healthcare and this isn't even an issue. People will get what they want to get and the market will provide choices.
I don't understand why people can't view healthcare like any other necessary but market-provided service, like shoes. Everyone needs shoes, but we have a free market in those!
As for being anti-abortion, it doesn't mean you are anti-woman. I still believe that the government has no right to interfere with abortions up to viability. I think that it is the moral duty of the mother to consider the life of her child. It is also perfectly okay for any doctor to refuse to provide any service he feels is morally questionable. It is even okay for any insurer to choose to cover or not to cover any procedure or medication they choose.
See, when you have markets, nobody who opposes abortion will ever have to pay for one if they don't want to. Nobody who wants to pay for them, or wants to get them, will ever be denied one. Birth control is the same thing. Same with euthanasia.
Markets solve problems by providing choices. Governments cause them by taking those choices away.
I love you. Unfortunately, it won't happen because the whole reason we have government with the power to control more than just what it needs to to protect the basic rights of its people is because it's considered a valid use of government to impose the will of the majority upon the minority. This is nearly fundamental to democracy, frankly.
Anti-Gay Rights activists generally believe gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because it offends them. They see it as their business, to protect the moral fiber of America or whatever the bullshit of the month happens to be at the time. You can't just say "you mind your business and I'll mind mine" because stupid people (of which there are many) will always disagree with you on what is in fact none of their fucking business.
The open market argument is great for people with money and a range of job opportunities, but what about poor motherfuckers who have to take whatever job they can get and cant afford the healthcare they need (i.e for abortions or contraceptives w/e). The government needs to help those that the market can take advantage of with healthcare being a massively important part of that.
We have government healthcare in Australia, its great. Think of the little people over your grandiose free market ideas.
On March 03 2012 14:53 Kielbasa wrote: The open market argument is great for people with money and a range of job opportunities, but what about poor motherfuckers who have to take whatever job they can get and cant afford the healthcare they need (i.e for abortions or contraceptives w/e). The government needs to help those that the market can take advantage of with healthcare being a massively important part of that.
We have government healthcare in Australia, its great. Think of the little people over your grandiose free market ideas.
The argument is that the people paying for your healthcare are the ones with money. The government says "we have guns, therefore you have to pay for other people's health care." That's kinda bad.
I'm not suggesting a better system, mind you. I don't think there IS a government that can actually solve all problems (or one that can make way for solutions to all problems by getting out of the way.) I'm just pointing out that there are flaws in government health care, too, and that it's rather pointless to argue the superiority of Robin Hood economics over Laissez-faire economics when both (in addition to any compromise between them) have flaws and neither will make everyone happy.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
I cant BELIEVE this user was warned for this post. That is a legitamite point and argument. Sorry that some people see this in black and white and care about an unborn child who is defensless to a mother who wants to kill them. Think if your mom or dad were aborted....YOU WOULDNT EXIST. Every child is special and unique and will do special and unique things throughout their lives, who is to say NO YOU CANT LIVE BECAUSE IM IRRESONSIBLE. Anyone who defends abortion is very blind to the facts. Women get the right to choose but what choice does that leave the baby that WILL become a child and someday an adult with kids and grandkids of their own? Somtimes this world makes me sick.
This thread is specifically about contraception not abortion. He was derailing the thread with a hot button issue.
If you have problems with moderation, please use website feedback.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
I cant BELIEVE this user was warned for this post. That is a legitamite point and argument. Sorry that some people see this in black and white and care about an unborn child who is defensless to a mother who wants to kill them. Think if your mom or dad were aborted....YOU WOULDNT EXIST. Every child is special and unique and will do special and unique things throughout their lives, who is to say NO YOU CANT LIVE BECAUSE IM IRRESONSIBLE. Anyone who defends abortion is very blind to the facts. Women get the right to choose but what choice does that leave the baby that WILL become a child and someday an adult with kids and grandkids of their own? Somtimes this world makes me sick.
Are you anti-war and anti-death penalty? Because I assure you, there's a bunch or innocent and not-so innocent people with actual names and faces that get murdered all over the world in the name of freedom and justice that you probably don't give two shits about. They all have more in common with you and other humans than a three week-old fetus.
Anti-abortion advocates rely primarily on 'moral authority' for their argument. Well that argument kind of sucks.
I am. However, the government should have absolutely no say in anything related to employee benefits, except by enforcing the terms of the employment contract. Employers should be free to not provide any health benefits, and certainly should be free to provide any kind of health benefit they want. Birth control is not something insurance should even be covering anyway. Insurance is for risk protection, not for everyday medications. Our health care system is so perverted by subsidies, government regulation, corporatism, and medical licensing that nobody can even pinpoint the source of the problem. Get government out of healthcare and this isn't even an issue. People will get what they want to get and the market will provide choices.
I don't understand why people can't view healthcare like any other necessary but market-provided service, like shoes. Everyone needs shoes, but we have a free market in those!
As for being anti-abortion, it doesn't mean you are anti-woman. I still believe that the government has no right to interfere with abortions up to viability. I think that it is the moral duty of the mother to consider the life of her child. It is also perfectly okay for any doctor to refuse to provide any service he feels is morally questionable. It is even okay for any insurer to choose to cover or not to cover any procedure or medication they choose.
See, when you have markets, nobody who opposes abortion will ever have to pay for one if they don't want to. Nobody who wants to pay for them, or wants to get them, will ever be denied one. Birth control is the same thing. Same with euthanasia.
Markets solve problems by providing choices. Governments cause them by taking those choices away.
Do I believe that my community is better off with "universal" healthcare, whether it be government-mandated or an affordable option on the free market? Yes.
Do I at least respect your argument? Yes.
I believe that there is some things worth paying taxes for, like roads, education, law enforcement and healthcare. I don't think of it as charity, I think of it as giving everyone an honest opportunity to succeed, so I can live in a community that isn't so desperate and miserable I have to travel in an armored car. Knowing that OTHER people have a safety net makes ME feel more secure.
I have absolutely nothing against birth control and abortions. It makes me glad I don't live in America, it's like on the radio I heard some politician ( sorry I don't know his name ) criticize Obama for wanting every kid to get a college education :/.
On March 03 2012 15:07 AugustDreams wrote: I have absolutely nothing against birth control and abortions. It makes me glad I don't live in America, it's like on the radio I heard some politician ( sorry I don't know his name ) criticize Obama for wanting every kid to get a college education :/.
Alright, be fair, I doubt he was criticizing him for that, per say. Much more likely that he was criticizing him for wanting to force banks to pay for it by mandating that after a certain amount of time (with proven effort by the student to pay them off,) student loans be dropped and the banks eat the loss.
It fucks with the economy and would likely result in either HUGE increases in interest rates across all loans to make up for the loss, or the lack of offering student loans in the first place (which in turn would cause the government to force them to offer them which would in turn force the first issue, which would in turn cause the government to mandate lower interest rates which would in turn drive banks out of business which would in turn ruin jobs and make it so NO ONE can afford to go to college which would in turn make private universities go bankrupt which would in turn force government subsidy of public university... you know what, you get the picture, go read Atlas Shrugged if you want the whole story.)
Not that I disagree that education shouldn't be more readily accessible. Again, not pushing an agenda, I don't believe there's a proper way of doing things, but you gotta be fair.
On March 03 2012 15:07 AugustDreams wrote: I have absolutely nothing against birth control and abortions. It makes me glad I don't live in America, it's like on the radio I heard some politician ( sorry I don't know his name ) criticize Obama for wanting every kid to get a college education :/.
im glad you dont live in america as well, because you apparently have an inability to understand things people say. the concern is about who bears the burden of paying for people going to college, not whether they go to college.
On March 03 2012 15:07 AugustDreams wrote: I have absolutely nothing against birth control and abortions. It makes me glad I don't live in America, it's like on the radio I heard some politician ( sorry I don't know his name ) criticize Obama for wanting every kid to get a college education :/.
im glad you dont live in america as well, because you apparently have an inability to understand things people say. the concern is about who bears the burden of paying for people going to college, not whether they go to college.
Oh, is that what he said? I thought he subsequently added that colleges were "indoctrinating" kids and then he began talking about how he was homeschooled and how the need for public education is vastly exaggerated. But, okay, obviously he was talking about something else. He certainly wasn't undermining the legitimacy of education at all; he was only talking about who has to "pay" for it.
i so changed what im going to say.. like most heated discussions there are 2 streets and all ppl need to see that. the common ground is the medium which many dont wish to reach close too.
i know several girls when they have this "monthly thing" it really REALLY hurts them. Apparently a relief to this is BC(birth control), to help them ease the pain they get. In these eyes, i feel passing such bill might be a bit harsh for such ppl going through such pain. And trust me, ive been there several times when they are feeling this pain.. i could not for 1 sec try to explain what they were going through nor even attempt to ask how it felt.
on the other side of the street, i can see ppl abuse this and (im not sure how to say this properly) so actions with as lil or no consequence of thought on their actions. I can see this raise many issues.. its rly ez too see. If u can see some well here is what i can think of: prostitution, sex w/o condoms relying on this pill which doesnt work 100%, woman having a sense of security, the spread of desease... it can spread in the wrong way imo.
so my thoughts on this, i wonder what is the best approach on solving this issue with making sure that the public is protected, taking care of and safe.
On March 03 2012 15:21 WOPR wrote: i so changed what im going to say.. like most heated discussions there are 2 streets and all ppl need to see that. the common ground is the medium which many dont wish to reach close too.
i know several girls when they have this "monthly thing" it really REALLY hurts them. Apparently a relief to this is BC(birth control), to help them ease the pain they get. In these eyes, i feel passing such bill might be a bit harsh for such ppl going through such pain. And trust me, ive been there several times when they are feeling this pain.. i could not for 1 sec try to explain what they were going through nor even attempt to ask how it felt.
on the other side of the street, i can see ppl abuse this and (im not sure how to say this properly) so actions with as lil or no consequence of thought on their actions. I can see this raise many issues.. its rly ez too see. If u can see some well here is what i can think of: prostitution, sex w/o condoms relying on this pill which doesnt work 100%, woman having a sense of security, the spread of desease... it can spread in the wrong way imo.
so my thoughts on this, i wonder what is the best approach on solving this issue with making sure that the public is protected, taking care of and safe.
You really think there IS a best answer? I mean, in this case it seems agreeable that the government not worry itself over this and businesses just choose whether they want to cover contraceptives or not... that is, unless you're a hardcore Catholic who believes contraception is as wrong as murder, and see it as the government's responsibility.
For a population with such WILDLY different beliefs about everything, one solution is never enough.
i never said that. i merely posted my thoughts on what i knew about the topic and asked questions. I never said one solution.. the whole world has never conceived one solution. my thoughts were based on what imo society is.. ( mb my bad for making that). and lol i am no a catholic or engaged in any religion beliefs. i was trying to show 2 sides of the streets and u put me on which side?
On March 03 2012 15:07 AugustDreams wrote: I have absolutely nothing against birth control and abortions. It makes me glad I don't live in America, it's like on the radio I heard some politician ( sorry I don't know his name ) criticize Obama for wanting every kid to get a college education :/.
Alright, be fair, I doubt he was criticizing him for that, per say. Much more likely that he was criticizing him for wanting to force banks to pay for it by mandating that after a certain amount of time (with proven effort by the student to pay them off,) student loans be dropped and the banks eat the loss.
It fucks with the economy and would likely result in either HUGE increases in interest rates across all loans to make up for the loss, or the lack of offering student loans in the first place (which in turn would cause the government to force them to offer them which would in turn force the first issue, which would in turn cause the government to mandate lower interest rates which would in turn drive banks out of business which would in turn ruin jobs and make it so NO ONE can afford to go to college which would in turn make private universities go bankrupt which would in turn force government subsidy of public university... you know what, you get the picture, go read Atlas Shrugged if you want the whole story.)
Not that I disagree that education shouldn't be more readily accessible. Again, not pushing an agenda, I don't believe there's a proper way of doing things, but you gotta be fair.
Yeah I see where you're coming from and what the issue would be, I live in Aus and I don't really know all the details. Still, from what I've heard about this guy and his ideals I would definitely not support him xD. But this is a topic about contraception so I'll stop writing about that lol.
What I don't see is why employers should be forced to give their employees contraception. I understand the need for contraception, as I use it myself to great effect, but there are alternatives to contraceptive use in order to exercise birth control, mainly abstinence and condom use.
This is why I don't see why employers or insurance companies should facilitate contraceptive pills. Maybe if their indication is dysmenorrhea or some other menstruation related problem, but then the diagnosis would have to be certified by a qualified physician and this method would certainly be abused.
Birth control isn't a problem that should be insured, and it isn't something employers should be forced to give their employees. Contraceptive pills aren't the only method of birth control. In my country girls can access contraceptive pills for free in some places, but it isn't mandatory for public health providers to do so, they do so only if the region can afford to do so.
i never said that. i merely posted my thoughts on what i knew about the topic and asked questions. I never said one solution.. the whole world has never conceived one solution. my thoughts were based on what imo society is.. ( mb my bad for making that). and lol i am no a catholic or engaged in any religion beliefs. i was trying to show 2 sides of the streets and u put me on which side?
On March 03 2012 15:21 WOPR wrote: i wonder what is the best approach on solving this issue with making sure that the public is protected, taking care of and safe.
On March 03 2012 15:07 AugustDreams wrote: I have absolutely nothing against birth control and abortions. It makes me glad I don't live in America, it's like on the radio I heard some politician ( sorry I don't know his name ) criticize Obama for wanting every kid to get a college education :/.
im glad you dont live in america as well, because you apparently have an inability to understand things people say. the concern is about who bears the burden of paying for people going to college, not whether they go to college.
Oh, is that what he said? I thought he subsequently added that colleges were "indoctrinating" kids and then he began talking about how he was homeschooled and how the need for public education is vastly exaggerated. But, okay, obviously he was talking about something else. He certainly wasn't undermining the legitimacy of education at all; he was only talking about who has to "pay" for it.
It was Rick Santorum, who claimed that Obama was a "snob" for wanting everyone to go to college. His argument was that liberals want to indoctrinate the new generations and make them lose their Christian faith through college.
But that's kind of offtopic ^^
-- I seriously don't understand why contraception is an issue at all. EVERYBODY uses contraception. Do the republicans really not care about losing the entirety of the female vote?
On March 03 2012 15:44 MountainDewJunkie wrote: It shouldn't have been such a narrow margin. It's as if our country is regressing.
I like to believe there's a possibility that that isn't true as well :T
On March 03 2012 15:07 AugustDreams wrote: I have absolutely nothing against birth control and abortions. It makes me glad I don't live in America, it's like on the radio I heard some politician ( sorry I don't know his name ) criticize Obama for wanting every kid to get a college education :/.
Alright, be fair, I doubt he was criticizing him for that, per say. Much more likely that he was criticizing him for wanting to force banks to pay for it by mandating that after a certain amount of time (with proven effort by the student to pay them off,) student loans be dropped and the banks eat the loss.
It fucks with the economy and would likely result in either HUGE increases in interest rates across all loans to make up for the loss, or the lack of offering student loans in the first place (which in turn would cause the government to force them to offer them which would in turn force the first issue, which would in turn cause the government to mandate lower interest rates which would in turn drive banks out of business which would in turn ruin jobs and make it so NO ONE can afford to go to college which would in turn make private universities go bankrupt which would in turn force government subsidy of public university... you know what, you get the picture, go read Atlas Shrugged if you want the whole story.)
Not that I disagree that education shouldn't be more readily accessible. Again, not pushing an agenda, I don't believe there's a proper way of doing things, but you gotta be fair.
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.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
I cant BELIEVE this user was warned for this post. That is a legitamite point and argument. Sorry that some people see this in black and white and care about an unborn child who is defensless to a mother who wants to kill them. Think if your mom or dad were aborted....YOU WOULDNT EXIST. Every child is special and unique and will do special and unique things throughout their lives, who is to say NO YOU CANT LIVE BECAUSE IM IRRESONSIBLE. Anyone who defends abortion is very blind to the facts. Women get the right to choose but what choice does that leave the baby that WILL become a child and someday an adult with kids and grandkids of their own? Somtimes this world makes me sick.
This thread is specifically about contraception not abortion. He was derailing the thread with a hot button issue.
If you have problems with moderation, please use website feedback.
The problem with the contraception debate is it is ultimately an abortion debate. Plan B and other abortifacients are part of the mandated coverage. Pro life groups consider these treatments to be abortion, and object to the mandate on these terms. There is wider objection to post conception "contraception" than the catholic church's more narrow proscriptions on all contraception.
I've been reading some comments on left-leaning websites and I gotta say, it's nice to see so many on the left to take time out of their busy days of calling Chris Christie a fatass, Fox News viewers morons, and Sarah Palin an idiot, to condemn personal attacks on a person.
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.
@UmiNotsuki what point are u making out with what i said "i wonder what is the best approach on solving this issue with making sure that the public is protected, taking care of and safe."
pointing what out.. u said i choose a religious side dude, read again what i posted, think about it and soak it in. the statement above is meant to find a link between 2 sides of heated discussions where we can build a common solution to such raged debate.
am i the only 1 thats seeing that in which what i said or am i totally wrong here?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Contraception is not the type of "healthcare" that people need, like dental work or cancer care. There is no reason anyone should be forced to provide this; it's not like you NEED sex. I amazed by what people think they are entitled to. And this violates the first amendment.
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.
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.
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).
birth control gives a senses of security when ur in the heat of moment. im sure if uve been with a girl at the time when things go down.. u seem to confine in such things. otherwise.. if u havent been in that moment.. just wait and see when u both in heat. then tell me after if it was ok to go forth w/o other protection just cause she whispered in ur ear.. " its ok im on birth control and just do it".
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.
I am pro-choice, but I think every woman considers abortion a huge deal. I don't know a single woman that thinks having an abortion is simple decision.
I've met two women that have had abortions, and neither are proud or non-chalant about it. They made a serious decision, and it motivated them change their life for the better.
Like war, capital punishment, euthanasia ... I think abortion is an unfortunate, but also justifiable choice.
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.
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 16:14 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.
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.
I am also strongly against abortion. I think that it basically dumps the consequences of the parents' actions on the child in a most terrible way.
But, this is not an abortion debate. This is a debate about birth control. Ideally, I believe that if you can't afford birth control, you can't afford to have a baby and should not be having sex. However, people are going to bone anyways. So, it's better to provide them with education and birth control rather than hoping that celibacy will somehow work. If a couple still manage to have a baby, then they better bear it and take care of it.
There's also a whole spectrum of other things with birth control pills, which is a colloquial name that refers to only one of their effects. For example, they can be used as medicine to correct hormonal imbalances.
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.
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.
It's pretty sad that in this world, we can people like the Westboro Baptist Church protest at a soldier's funeral and tell the mourners that the guy is going to hell and Limbaugh spewing his misogynistic, racist and downright ignorant commentary while a ESPN writer gets fired for racist (but admittedly punny) Jeremy Lin joke.
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.
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.
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).
Consentual sex is not immoral in any way shape or form. We are biologically programmed to do it. The notion that sex is for procreation only is laughable. Who are you to tell someone they are immoral for wanting to be intimate with someone? We now have methods to make these activities safe, and we should take full advantage of that. Whether you approve of someones sexual behaviour means shit all to me, to them, and to the general populace. Sex happens, it will happen with birth control, without it, with your approval, or without it.
Morality is not being destroyed by me loving someone and having sex with them. Morality is also not being destroyed if someone has a one night stand for purely pleasure. Its your body, and you are performing a natural function with it. Why is that immoral?
On March 03 2012 15:07 AugustDreams wrote: I have absolutely nothing against birth control and abortions. It makes me glad I don't live in America, it's like on the radio I heard some politician ( sorry I don't know his name ) criticize Obama for wanting every kid to get a college education :/.
Alright, be fair, I doubt he was criticizing him for that, per say. Much more likely that he was criticizing him for wanting to force banks to pay for it by mandating that after a certain amount of time (with proven effort by the student to pay them off,) student loans be dropped and the banks eat the loss.
It fucks with the economy and would likely result in either HUGE increases in interest rates across all loans to make up for the loss, or the lack of offering student loans in the first place (which in turn would cause the government to force them to offer them which would in turn force the first issue, which would in turn cause the government to mandate lower interest rates which would in turn drive banks out of business which would in turn ruin jobs and make it so NO ONE can afford to go to college which would in turn make private universities go bankrupt which would in turn force government subsidy of public university... you know what, you get the picture, go read Atlas Shrugged if you want the whole story.)
Not that I disagree that education shouldn't be more readily accessible. Again, not pushing an agenda, I don't believe there's a proper way of doing things, but you gotta be fair.
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.
Sorry, didn't realize this was Rick Santorum we were talking about xD Yeah, he's a little cuckoo.
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.
On March 03 2012 05:16 Praetorial wrote: It means that an entire political wing is basing its ideology upon the word of the Bible, which is highly disturbing from a practical perspective.
Also, I'm holding my breath until someone says, "Ron Paul 2012!", because a discussion like this is just going to dredge up everything.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
Wat. Just what. A fetus is not a child. Sex is a part of life.
Employers shouldn't care about either of these things, if they plan to have open applications.
A fetus is a living human being. But I dont think that you can point all fingers on girls who cant keep their pants on.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 23:15 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/Fetushttp://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 )
Neither governments nor individuals have the right to put limitations in this. It is the woman's responsability and thus the choice is up to her... You can disagree, get disgusted or whatever, but you will never have the right to pose limitations on that. quite simple
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
Catholic institutions are already tax-exempted and subjected to hundreds of other legal breaks that non-religious organizations don't have. If you want to talk responsibility, lets repeal those, let religious institutions exempt contraceptives, and have government use that revenue to provide women in those institutions contraceptive coverage. I'm sure nobody backing the existing contraceptive law would mind.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
ugh the problem with religious logic is that if god wanted the baby to be born why would he also allow humans to create such a method to NOT allow it to be born?
broken logic and as a human the only REAL answer is that we cant have an answer and to just let people do whatever they want. i dont get why other people are allowed to enforce such ideals on others. it really makes no sense and goes against the people who condemn said activitys logic making them hypocrits.
sickening how politics are about religion when there was separation of church and state for a reason
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
Catholic institutions are already tax-exempted and subjected to hundreds of other legal breaks that non-religious organizations don't have. If you want to talk responsibility, lets repeal those, let religious institutions exempt contraceptives, and have government use that revenue to provide women in those institutions contraceptive coverage. I'm sure nobody backing the existing contraceptive law would mind.
They have existing unrelated benefits so should should not get this one? Doesn't make much sense to me, I have to admit.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
It really isnt fair though. Why should you have to choose between a high quality degree or job because you need medication? There are so many religiously affiliated colleges/universities/ hospitals etc that its somewhat absurd to say you should just go ahead and cross those off your list of employers or schools for medical reasons.
Edit: And I think the Catholic Church needs to change their stance on this topic anyways. It goes against the actual practice of most Catholics- they use birth control. Institutions need to adapt to the current social contexts and not what was said by a group of males decades ago. There is nothing in the Bible about birth control, which has existed in many forms since the beginning of human culture. This isnt a new phenomenon, we just finally now have some that actually work and some that can be used for many other medicinal reasons.
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?
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
Catholic institutions are already tax-exempted and subjected to hundreds of other legal breaks that non-religious organizations don't have. If you want to talk responsibility, lets repeal those, let religious institutions exempt contraceptives, and have government use that revenue to provide women in those institutions contraceptive coverage. I'm sure nobody backing the existing contraceptive law would mind.
They have existing unrelated benefits so should should not get this one? Doesn't make much sense to me, I have to admit.
The reason religious institutions get tax breaks is because they provide a public good. If they're going to not perform some public service that other institutions do, then deduct from their tax break that rewardes them from providing public services. It's not that difficult.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
Catholic institutions are already tax-exempted and subjected to hundreds of other legal breaks that non-religious organizations don't have. If you want to talk responsibility, lets repeal those, let religious institutions exempt contraceptives, and have government use that revenue to provide women in those institutions contraceptive coverage. I'm sure nobody backing the existing contraceptive law would mind.
They have existing unrelated benefits so should should not get this one? Doesn't make much sense to me, I have to admit.
I'm never said they shouldn't get religious exemption. The reason religious institutions get tax breaks is because they provide a public good. If they're going to not perform some public service that other institutions do, then deduct from their tax break that rewardes them from providing public services. It's not that difficult.
But your definition of public good is providing contraception? You have to understand that's a thin bridge to walk. It's not like they stop being positive institutions because they don't do this one thing you'd like them to do.
I mean it almost seems like you're turning this argument into railing against religion and their privileged status in America.
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
Catholic institutions are already tax-exempted and subjected to hundreds of other legal breaks that non-religious organizations don't have. If you want to talk responsibility, lets repeal those, let religious institutions exempt contraceptives, and have government use that revenue to provide women in those institutions contraceptive coverage. I'm sure nobody backing the existing contraceptive law would mind.
They have existing unrelated benefits so should should not get this one? Doesn't make much sense to me, I have to admit.
I'm never said they shouldn't get religious exemption. The reason religious institutions get tax breaks is because they provide a public good. If they're going to not perform some public service that other institutions do, then deduct from their tax break that rewardes them from providing public services. It's not that difficult.
But your definition of public good is providing contraception? You have to understand that's a thin bridge to walk. It's not like they stop being positive institutions because they don't do this one thing you'd like them to do.
I mean it almost seems like you're turning this argument railing against religion and their privileged status in America.
Um, no. You deduct as much from their exemption as they are saving from not providing contraception. Its not an all or nothing debate. If they're not going to do something other businesses have to, then they should pay for the money they save. That's basic responsibility.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act
"Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother"
And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
And you think people are going to support a business- buying their goods etc- if they are openly discriminating against people. I Dont think so
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.
Just because you will fuck anything with two legs if given the chance does not mean that women are the deciding party. Just that you have lower standards then they do.
On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote: Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
No, it's asking for the insurance company to provide it.
1) Choose another University.
There are enough barriers between students and the universities they wish to attend. To create another would be entirely needless.
2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University
What are you talking about? Prepare yourself to not get ovarian cysts?
3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
If it were that simple this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. Contraception can cost a significant amount of money and many wouldn't be able to afford it.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act
"Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother"
And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
It's 2012. I'm pretty sure men know that children are a risk of sex. Talk to your partner about options should contraception fail and use additional safeguards if you don't want to take the risk.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
And you think people are going to support a business- buying their goods etc- if they are openly discriminating against people. I Dont think so
It has nothing to do with the fact that, by itself, hiring atheists/whatever can't be a good/bad business model by itself, but only context and culture based one.
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.
Just because you will fuck anything with two legs if given the chance does not mean that women are the deciding party. Just that you have lower standards then they do.
You didn't say anything reasonable against his argument, in nature, men court, and women choose, these days women are the ones who choose who they date, marry, have sex with etc etc, it's not 100 years ago when the fathers decided for them.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act
"Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother"
And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
I really dont think this happens often enough to warrant even bringing up, most women dont have some plot to have children in order to get child support. Its not really the way to luxury...and either way, if you are having sex with someone there is always the chance of that happening, so you are always responsible regardless. If you are with someone who you think isnt being honest about taking their birth control, then you are responsible for doing your part as well.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
Catholic institutions are already tax-exempted and subjected to hundreds of other legal breaks that non-religious organizations don't have. If you want to talk responsibility, lets repeal those, let religious institutions exempt contraceptives, and have government use that revenue to provide women in those institutions contraceptive coverage. I'm sure nobody backing the existing contraceptive law would mind.
They have existing unrelated benefits so should should not get this one? Doesn't make much sense to me, I have to admit.
I'm never said they shouldn't get religious exemption. The reason religious institutions get tax breaks is because they provide a public good. If they're going to not perform some public service that other institutions do, then deduct from their tax break that rewardes them from providing public services. It's not that difficult.
But your definition of public good is providing contraception? You have to understand that's a thin bridge to walk. It's not like they stop being positive institutions because they don't do this one thing you'd like them to do.
I mean it almost seems like you're turning this argument railing against religion and their privileged status in America.
Um, no. You deduct as much from their exemption as they are saving from not providing contraception. Its not an all or nothing debate. If they're not going to do something other businesses have to, then they should pay for the money they save. That's basic responsibility.
What you've done is force them to give contraception without actually requiring them to hand out the condoms and pills.
The argument is about to circle back onto why they need to be required to give out contraception.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:
On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act
"Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother"
And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
It's 2012. I'm pretty sure men know that children are a risk of sex. Talk to your partner about options should contraception fail and use additional safeguards if you don't want to take the risk.
I think that most men will just trust their girlfriends when they tell them that they don't want a baby, how do you think my girlfriend would act if, after she tells me that she's taking the pill and doesn't want children, I still put on a condom? She will feel that I don't trust her and will be really hurt.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
And you think people are going to support a business- buying their goods etc- if they are openly discriminating against people. I Dont think so
Well Nike openly employees sweatshop labor as does Apple and countless other major brands.
So yes, I think people will support a business model that shits all over its employees without a second thought.... as long as the store they buy it in looks nice ^^
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
And you think people are going to support a business- buying their goods etc- if they are openly discriminating against people. I Dont think so
It has nothing to do with the fact that, by itself, hiring atheists/whatever can't be a good/bad business model by itself, but only context and culture based one.
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.
Just because you will fuck anything with two legs if given the chance does not mean that women are the deciding party. Just that you have lower standards then they do.
You didn't say anything reasonable against his argument, in nature, men court, and women choose, these days women are the ones who choose who they date, marry, have sex with etc etc, it's not 100 years ago when the fathers decided for them.
Alright well Im not a business major and know nothing about that- and its pretty irrelevant actually, the point I am making is that you cant let business just decide who or what they think is moral and then dictate peoples lives around that. First, it wont be good for business because people like me would choose to not buy any of their goods, and secondly, they are going to alienate a good majority of potential high quality employers that dont fit their ridiculously narrow view of what a good and moral person it.
edit: and the overseas sweatshop argument is an entirely different debate. You really cant get around that in this country unless you pretty much buy only things made in the United States. Im talking about US businesses hiring US citizens
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:
On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act
"Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother"
And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
I really dont think this happens often enough to warrant even bringing up, most women dont have some plot to have children in order to get child support. Its not really the way to luxury...and either way, if you are having sex with someone there is always the chance of that happening, so you are always responsible regardless. If you are with someone who you think isnt being honest about taking their birth control, then you are responsible for doing your part as well.
It's not like pepole have a plot for a lot of things, many pepole just act on a whim, pepole can get overweight, hurt others and so on, not because they plan ahead, but... it just happens for some pepole, maybe the woman just saw a documentary about babies which had a dramatic effect on her preception? You can never be 100% sure about anything regarding human beings, everyone is different to an extent.
And I don't know about how often that happenes, maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act
"Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother"
And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
Bravo. A hilarious example of how men, throughout the centuries, are suppressed by women. This is just another ploy in the grand scheme of things. A man accidentally slipped and his dick landed in a vagina. Happens all the time. I feel with you bro.
Sex is a two way street, why should contraception be any different?
On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote: [quote] 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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
And you think people are going to support a business- buying their goods etc- if they are openly discriminating against people. I Dont think so
It has nothing to do with the fact that, by itself, hiring atheists/whatever can't be a good/bad business model by itself, but only context and culture based one.
On March 04 2012 00:18 seppolevne wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:
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.
Just because you will fuck anything with two legs if given the chance does not mean that women are the deciding party. Just that you have lower standards then they do.
You didn't say anything reasonable against his argument, in nature, men court, and women choose, these days women are the ones who choose who they date, marry, have sex with etc etc, it's not 100 years ago when the fathers decided for them.
Alright well Im not a business major and know nothing about that- and its pretty irrelevant actually, the point I am making is that you cant let business just decide who or what they think is moral and then dictate peoples lives around that. First, it wont be good for business because people like me would choose to not buy any of their goods, and secondly, they are going to alienate a good majority of potential high quality employers that dont fit their ridiculously narrow view of what a good and moral person it.
edit: and the overseas sweatshop argument is an entirely different debate. You really cant get around that in this country unless you pretty much buy only things made in the United States. Im talking about US businesses hiring US citizens
EDIT: Don't want to start a discussion I can't finish... grocery store time!
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:
On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act
"Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother"
And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
I really dont think this happens often enough to warrant even bringing up, most women dont have some plot to have children in order to get child support. Its not really the way to luxury...and either way, if you are having sex with someone there is always the chance of that happening, so you are always responsible regardless. If you are with someone who you think isnt being honest about taking their birth control, then you are responsible for doing your part as well.
It's not like pepole have a plot for a lot of things, many pepole just act on a whim, pepole can get overweight, hurt others and so on, not because they plan ahead, but... it just happens for some pepole, maybe the woman just saw a documentary about babies which had a dramatic effect on her preception? You can never be 100% sure about anything regarding human beings, everyone is different to an extent.
And I don't know about how often that happenes, maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't.
It really doesnt, because it is shifting the blame entirely on the female again. It is making men martyrs who are completely helpess against women and their "emotions" Its pretty offensive to think we are so driven by our hormones and emotions that simply seeing a documentary about babies would make us subconsciously stop taking birth control and then get pregnant. Its absurd
On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote: [quote] 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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
And you think people are going to support a business- buying their goods etc- if they are openly discriminating against people. I Dont think so
It has nothing to do with the fact that, by itself, hiring atheists/whatever can't be a good/bad business model by itself, but only context and culture based one.
On March 04 2012 00:18 seppolevne wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:
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.
Just because you will fuck anything with two legs if given the chance does not mean that women are the deciding party. Just that you have lower standards then they do.
You didn't say anything reasonable against his argument, in nature, men court, and women choose, these days women are the ones who choose who they date, marry, have sex with etc etc, it's not 100 years ago when the fathers decided for them.
Alright well Im not a business major and know nothing about that- and its pretty irrelevant actually, the point I am making is that you cant let business just decide who or what they think is moral and then dictate peoples lives around that. First, it wont be good for business because people like me would choose to not buy any of their goods, and secondly, they are going to alienate a good majority of potential high quality employers that dont fit their ridiculously narrow view of what a good and moral person it.
edit: and the overseas sweatshop argument is an entirely different debate. You really cant get around that in this country unless you pretty much buy only things made in the United States. Im talking about US businesses hiring US citizens
Why not? Let businesses decide for themselves, you only need to decide to support them or not, if a business chooses to not hire quality pepole - it's still their decisions, and if they fall because of it, it's their own fault.
I don't know why everyone's getting worked up about this.
Rush Limbaugh loves to troll the left-side of the media, so he often goes out of his way to say outrageous things just for the purpose of ticking them off.
As for the issue itself, why should employers be in charge of their employee's healthcare? That is what needs to be changed. Then insurance companies can choose whether or not they want to include the service of contraception or not. Then individuals can look at each company, see if they have the plan they like, and buy from them. If people want contraceptives to be covered, all you have to do is go to another insurance company that does cover them. The free market will decide who wins and who loses.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
And you think people are going to support a business- buying their goods etc- if they are openly discriminating against people. I Dont think so
It has nothing to do with the fact that, by itself, hiring atheists/whatever can't be a good/bad business model by itself, but only context and culture based one.
On March 04 2012 00:18 seppolevne wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:
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.
Just because you will fuck anything with two legs if given the chance does not mean that women are the deciding party. Just that you have lower standards then they do.
You didn't say anything reasonable against his argument, in nature, men court, and women choose, these days women are the ones who choose who they date, marry, have sex with etc etc, it's not 100 years ago when the fathers decided for them.
Alright well Im not a business major and know nothing about that- and its pretty irrelevant actually, the point I am making is that you cant let business just decide who or what they think is moral and then dictate peoples lives around that. First, it wont be good for business because people like me would choose to not buy any of their goods, and secondly, they are going to alienate a good majority of potential high quality employers that dont fit their ridiculously narrow view of what a good and moral person it.
edit: and the overseas sweatshop argument is an entirely different debate. You really cant get around that in this country unless you pretty much buy only things made in the United States. Im talking about US businesses hiring US citizens
well no, you made the point that consumers would be savy and don't support less than moral business practices.... that argument has no basis in reality
How doesnt it? If I was aware that say Nike decided that they didnt want to support birth control coverage or HIV screening for their homosexual emplyers, I would stop shopping there. Im sure there would be tons of news stories and people would boycott it. How is that unrealistic?
And I am agreeing with you then- I just made the one simple point that it probably wouldnt be in their best interest to do these things...this is entirely irrelevant though
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:
On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act
"Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother"
And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
Bravo. A hilarious example of how men, throughout the centuries, are suppressed by women. This is just another ploy in the grand scheme of things. A man accidentally slipped and his dick landed in a vagina. Happens all the time. I feel with you bro.
Sex is a two way street, why should contraception be any different?
I didn't talk about contraception, I talked about trust.
If I don't trust a girl (like in a club), of course i'm going to use a condom, but if I dated her long enough, should I still not trust her? Should I treat her as a lier and never trust her?
On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote: [quote] 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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:
On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act
"Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother"
And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
I really dont think this happens often enough to warrant even bringing up, most women dont have some plot to have children in order to get child support. Its not really the way to luxury...and either way, if you are having sex with someone there is always the chance of that happening, so you are always responsible regardless. If you are with someone who you think isnt being honest about taking their birth control, then you are responsible for doing your part as well.
It's not like pepole have a plot for a lot of things, many pepole just act on a whim, pepole can get overweight, hurt others and so on, not because they plan ahead, but... it just happens for some pepole, maybe the woman just saw a documentary about babies which had a dramatic effect on her preception? You can never be 100% sure about anything regarding human beings, everyone is different to an extent.
And I don't know about how often that happenes, maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't.
It really doesnt, because it is shifting the blame entirely on the female again. It is making men martyrs who are completely helpess against women and their "emotions" Its pretty offensive to think we are so driven by our hormones and emotions that simply seeing a documentary about babies would make us subconsciously stop taking birth control and then get pregnant. Its absurd
You would be suprised to find out how much of our behavior and personality are created solely by our genetics and hormones. Most human behavior isn't purely logical you know, many pepole don't really think about things, they rationalize to themselves later on, maybe you don't, but most pepole do.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:
On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act
"Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother"
And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
It's 2012. I'm pretty sure men know that children are a risk of sex. Talk to your partner about options should contraception fail and use additional safeguards if you don't want to take the risk.
I think that most men will just trust their girlfriends when they tell them that they don't want a baby, how do you think my girlfriend would act if, after she tells me that she's taking the pill and doesn't want children, I still put on a condom? She will feel that I don't trust her and will be really hurt.
Why the fuck would your girlfriend feel like you don't trust her? She doesn't want kids and gets hurt when you put on a condom. Is she stupid? Then stop dating her. Problem solved. Two to tango, suck it up.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:
On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act
"Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother"
And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
I really dont think this happens often enough to warrant even bringing up, most women dont have some plot to have children in order to get child support. Its not really the way to luxury...and either way, if you are having sex with someone there is always the chance of that happening, so you are always responsible regardless. If you are with someone who you think isnt being honest about taking their birth control, then you are responsible for doing your part as well.
It's not like pepole have a plot for a lot of things, many pepole just act on a whim, pepole can get overweight, hurt others and so on, not because they plan ahead, but... it just happens for some pepole, maybe the woman just saw a documentary about babies which had a dramatic effect on her preception? You can never be 100% sure about anything regarding human beings, everyone is different to an extent.
And I don't know about how often that happenes, maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't.
It really doesnt, because it is shifting the blame entirely on the female again. It is making men martyrs who are completely helpess against women and their "emotions" Its pretty offensive to think we are so driven by our hormones and emotions that simply seeing a documentary about babies would make us subconsciously stop taking birth control and then get pregnant. Its absurd
You would be suprised to find out how much of our behavior and personality are created solely by our genetics and hormones. Most human behavior isn't purely logical you know, many pepole don't really think about things, they rationalize to themselves later on, maybe you don't, but most pepole do.
No I wouldnt . We have self control and we have self awareness though- it is overly simplistic and ignorant to think that you would make the conscious decision not to take a pill that you take at the same time everyday because of some documentary or because you saw someone with a baby etc etc. That is a huge decision that people dont just casually make
And we are not determined by our genetics- culture and upbringing has an enormous effect on our personality.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:
On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act
"Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother"
And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
I really dont think this happens often enough to warrant even bringing up, most women dont have some plot to have children in order to get child support. Its not really the way to luxury...and either way, if you are having sex with someone there is always the chance of that happening, so you are always responsible regardless. If you are with someone who you think isnt being honest about taking their birth control, then you are responsible for doing your part as well.
Well, most men do not have a plot to get women pregnant ether.
And lets just take the 4 situations :
Man wants to get women pregnant without her wishing for it
He can make a whole in a condom, and in case they are really close he can replace her pills, EVEN so the women can still abort the baby
Pregnant by mistake - man doesn't want the baby
Only mistake a man can do is for his condom to "fail" Women however can use 2 "safeguards" 1 being the man condom the 2nd being the pills and in case both fails or she forgets the pills ( which is kinda her fault ) she can abort. If she does not want to the man can't force her to abort and is obligated to pay for a kid that he doesn't want to have
Women wants to get pregnant without her partner knowing:
She can stop taking pills and tell the man that she did take them, in case the man uses a condom she could find a way to break it ( although it would be hard, much like a men replacing the pills ) and there is the option to use the sperm from certain" sexual acts" or from the condom in case the man forgot to throw it but it isn't likely to work + kinda easy to spot, so its kinda of "even" with the man BUT she still has the option to abort for her, so she is favored
Pregnant by mistake - women doesn't want baby
Its her "responsibility" to take pills and she can be sure that the man is wearing a condom ( unlike man, which can't be sure if the women took the pills or not ) and it is HER choice to keep the baby
Well both cases of "unwanted" pregnancy where one wants to keep the baby and one does not seem to be in favor of women, so i ask again, why should man be taxed even more for it than they are now ?
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal.
On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:
On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:
On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote: 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 )
So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate.
There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much.
Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act
"Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother"
And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
Bravo. A hilarious example of how men, throughout the centuries, are suppressed by women. This is just another ploy in the grand scheme of things. A man accidentally slipped and his dick landed in a vagina. Happens all the time. I feel with you bro.
Sex is a two way street, why should contraception be any different?
I didn't talk about contraception, I talked about trust.
If I don't trust a girl (like in a club), of course i'm going to use a condom, but if I dated her long enough, should I still not trust her? Should I treat her as a lier and never trust her?
You probably should, yet that always depends from person to person. What does it even mean "dated long enough"? Why treat her as a liar, does she give you reason for that? The point is : If YOU fuck with somebody, and don´t want to make a child - let alone trust her??? - why don´t you use a condom. It´s really that simple of an answer. Take responsibility either way - even if you "fuck up".
Your argument makes no sense, and again most women or men for that matter are not being this manipulative and it really has nothing to do with the contraception argument at all.
On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote: Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
No, it's asking for the insurance company to provide it.
If it were that simple this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. Contraception can cost a significant amount of money and many wouldn't be able to afford it.
1) This distinction is meaningless, the University needs to pay for the insurance. And the barrier is not needless at all, it's only needless to those who believe as you do. The best Universities in the country are secular, and why do you wish to attend a University that doesn't believe what you obviously do believe? I find it hard to imagine someone loving Catholic education but hating so much of the culture.
2) I think it was obvious what I was referring to, you insist on being purposefully obtuse. I understand your point that not all contraception is used as birth control. That leaves you with 1 and 3. I would also like to state that this is being used as a shield to avoid the subject of promiscuity. 25% of all women use OCP as a contraceptive. Clinical use of OCP is literally nothing in comparison. (based on 5 minutes of google research)
3)If they can't afford it they've screwed up all 3. That sort of fits a 3 strikes and you're out rule, doesn't it?
On March 04 2012 00:45 SimDawg wrote: I find it hard to imagine someone loving Catholic education but hating so much of the culture.
Someone 'hates the culture' because they use birth control? Georgetown is a prestigious university, there are an endless amount of purely secular reasons to want to attend it. Expecting someone not to attend it because they disagree with a single Catholic belief is absurd.
I think it was obvious what I was referring to, you insist on being purposefully obtuse.
Of course I knew what you were referring to. I was pointing out how it's nonsense. And please explain how someone should 'prepare themselves' to not get pregnant without birth control.
I would also like to state that this is being used as a shield to avoid the subject of promiscuity.
Ah... your true colors.
If they can't afford it they've screwed up all 3. That sort of fits a 3 strikes and you're out rule, doesn't it?
No idea what that is supposed to mean. My point is very simple and clear: if these women could afford contraception then this wouldn't be an issue to begin with. Thus saying "Why don't they just pay for it themselves?" is utterly ridiculous.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
1. Terrible analogy not even remotely correlating to what we're talking about 2. Let's allow your analogy for a second - that wouldn't be constitutional.
It's perfectly reasonable for a company to say "we simply do not provide XYZ service because we don't believe in it for ABC reasons." Consumers have a choice in which companies they choose. Companies shouldn't be obligated to offer a service they don't want to.
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.
The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution.
Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever.
That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country.
More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2.
Seems eminently fair.
A+
Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections.
So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me.
1. Terrible analogy not even remotely correlating to what we're talking about 2. Let's allow your analogy for a second - that wouldn't be constitutional.
It's perfectly reasonable for a company to say "we simply do not provide XYZ service because we don't believe in it for ABC reasons." Consumers have a choice in which companies they choose. Companies shouldn't be obligated to offer a service they don't want to
It isnt unreasonable because the bill was so broadly phrased that it could allow companies to eliminate anything they didnt want to cover on moral grounds. Although I disagree with religious institutions not providing services on moral grounds I can at least see some attempt at a reasonable argument there, but not just any company or any university deciding what is moral
And also by your logic you could say we dont want to provide insulin for diabetics because we dont believe in it. What medical training does an employer have that gives them any right to decide that for another person. "Belief" isnt science or medicine
Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
I don't understand why people can't view healthcare like any other necessary but market-provided service, like shoes. Everyone needs shoes, but we have a free market in those!
The problem is that there are certain public goods that the free market may not provide, but would be beneficial overall if they were provided. Roads, healthcare, research&development, etc. The reason why these items may not be provided by the free market is because they are not necessarily profitable to an individual (even though they may be profitable to society as a whole). So, for example, it may almost never be economical for health insurance agencies to provide care to certain individuals or for certain problems. So we enter a situation in which the market forces may not create competition leading to optimal health insurance plans, but perhaps leads to suboptimal, but highly profitable health insurance plans.
Now perhaps you may say that health insurance providers should never be forced to provide any care that is not profitable. You may even say such a thing is morally wrong. Fair point, but now we have a less healthy population which has much larger ramifications than any individual. If profit and the gain of wealth for individuals is the only purpose of the economy and free market, then I concede that you are correct. However, I do not believe that is the case.
That's not even an argument.
"The market cannot provide these services because the market cannot provide these services."
Everything is profitable to individuals. If there is demand, there is a potential for profit. It used to be we had a free market in healthcare, and it worked just fine (1940s and 1950s). Many private roads were built in the 1700/1800s. If government was needed for R&D explain all the innovations that occurred in the 1800s without any government assistance.
Your argument is the typical statist nonsense that is propagated through public school textbooks. It's time for you to think above a kindergarten level.
I don't understand why people can't view healthcare like any other necessary but market-provided service, like shoes. Everyone needs shoes, but we have a free market in those!
The problem is that there are certain public goods that the free market may not provide, but would be beneficial overall if they were provided. Roads, healthcare, research&development, etc. The reason why these items may not be provided by the free market is because they are not necessarily profitable to an individual (even though they may be profitable to society as a whole). So, for example, it may almost never be economical for health insurance agencies to provide care to certain individuals or for certain problems. So we enter a situation in which the market forces may not create competition leading to optimal health insurance plans, but perhaps leads to suboptimal, but highly profitable health insurance plans.
Now perhaps you may say that health insurance providers should never be forced to provide any care that is not profitable. You may even say such a thing is morally wrong. Fair point, but now we have a less healthy population which has much larger ramifications than any individual. If profit and the gain of wealth for individuals is the only purpose of the economy and free market, then I concede that you are correct. However, I do not believe that is the case.
That's not even an argument.
"The market cannot provide these services because the market cannot provide these services."
Everything is profitable to individuals. If there is demand, there is a potential for profit. It used to be we had a free market in healthcare, and it worked just fine (1940s and 1950s). Many private roads were built in the 1700/1800s. If government was needed for R&D explain all the innovations that occurred in the 1800s without any government assistance.
Your argument is the typical statist nonsense that is propagated through public school textbooks. It's time for you to think above a kindergarten level.
You are exaggerating about the effectiveness of the "free market healthcare" in the 1940s and 1950s. There were a great deal of people that did not have access to this free market health care that "worked just fine". And private roads are not public, but perhaps you would enjoy it if every road you drove on was tolled so that some private individual could profit.
My study of economics, by the way, comes from reading people such as Heilbroner, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Levine, Keynes, etc. I'm not sure if kindergarten textbooks come with excerpts from these people, but if they do, I apologize for thinking at a kindergarten level... Oh, my bad, you were just using an ad hominem attack because you felt extremely defensive. Probably because you propagate a position that you are not entirely certain about. People often get angry and resort to such tactics when their core beliefs are attacked, and they are not as certain as they'd like to be about them.
The argument is not "the market cannot provide these services because the market cannot provide these services." This is a misrepresentation. The argument is, "the market MAY not provide these services because they may not be profitable." And the truth is, history tells is that this is the case. The reason government often gets involved in such things as public goods is precisely because the market failed to provide them.
Gaining the highest profits often necessarily means not being provided to everyone. If one is interested in profit, they will raise their prices in such a way that they can make the most possible money. This could mean that they sell to every person on the market, but more likely it means that some people will be excluded as they are below what the median is willing to pay. If public goods are not being provided to everyone, but there is a reasonable belief that public goods being provided to everyone will have certain benefits, then it would be beneficial for the government to step in.
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer.
the thing that really bothers me about this kind of bill is that it getting all kinds of media attention and play when actual important bills like NDAA get next to no coverage or outrage. How many times does the abortion argument have to be rehashed only to end the in with the same result again? Its like a circus act and has far less consequences than something as potentionally brutal as the NDAA...
this close to the election it just makes the election about abortion and religion AGAIN instead about actual things that matter and affect people in the US.
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer.
Most people dont live in a world where they can just get any job they want with whatever benefits they want. It takes most people months to be able to find a job and its unreasonable to assume that they should then be forced to not take the job because it doesnt cover their health care needs.
On March 04 2012 02:47 Dryzt wrote: the thing that really bothers me about this kind of bill is that it getting all kinds of media attention and play when actual important bills like NDAA get next to no coverage or outrage. How many times does the abortion argument have to be rehashed only to end the in with the same result again? Its like a circus act and has far less consequences than something as potentionally brutal as the NDAA...
this close to the election it just makes the election about abortion and religion AGAIN instead about actual things that matter and affect people in the US.
This actually would affect the economy and other important aspects of peoples lives. Imagine if there was no way to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Although I agree that this is being brought up as a mere social issue to divide people, it actually has real life consequences that matters to nearly every female in the country
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer.
Any employer could deny any form of coverage, so yes, that applies to "somewhere else".
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer.
i cant believe this actually needs explaining. if companies cant easily argue they dont have to provide any cover at all, because it goes against their moral convictions, people in low paid jobs will not be able to get any health coverage at all, why is this so hard to understand?
how can there be people who live in america who are so stone hearted that just because they can afford health care outside of their job, that no one else should be given some help. you're only rich because someone else is poor, why do you feel the need to be such an ass about helping people?
On March 04 2012 02:47 Dryzt wrote: the thing that really bothers me about this kind of bill is that it getting all kinds of media attention and play when actual important bills like NDAA get next to no coverage or outrage. How many times does the abortion argument have to be rehashed only to end the in with the same result again? Its like a circus act and has far less consequences than something as potentionally brutal as the NDAA...
this close to the election it just makes the election about abortion and religion AGAIN instead about actual things that matter and affect people in the US.
This actually would affect the economy and other important aspects of peoples lives. Imagine if there was no way to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Although I agree that this is being brought up as a mere social issue to divide people, it actually has real life consequences that matters to nearly every female in the country
part of the point i was trying to make i guess is that we have heard this song and dance before, its like clockwork, right before an election the media and political parties whip people up on social issues like abortion, religious rights etc. but after all is said and done abortion hasn't been outlawed women still have the right to choose etc. And really this mainly only effects women of early child bearing years where as other legistation effects every single american.
Whenever poeple go to the polls in the fall they wont be thinking about smaller government, cutting the deficite, ending the FED, takling the fact the US is turning into a police state. no they are thinking about "i cant let candidate X in because of their stance on abortion"...
It doesn't seem like you've been paying attention because this debate isn't about abortion. This is a very important issue; imagine the chaos if any employer could decide that they don't want to cover something because of a 'moral objection'. That could easily lead to millions of people being denied health care.
This is a very important issue; imagine the chaos if any employer could decide that they don't want to cover something because of a 'moral objection'. That could easily lead to millions of people being denied health care.
But that isn't the issue; the issue is whether religious institutions should be forced by the government to subsidize making recreational behavior consequence-free against their moral convictions.
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
You do realise most religions advocate death for apostasy? (leaving the religion). The government stops them from doing that.
Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, government is prohibiting the free exercise of their religion by stopping them killing apostates.
Fortunately we're in a civilised society which has better morals than bronze age shepherd morality, and contraception should be as freely available as murdering apostates is not.
On March 03 2012 08:36 acie wrote: This is why women get paid less then men
User was temp banned for this post.
I don't understand what makes people think that posts like this are okay. I just can't comprehend it.
Actually, in France, women do get paid less than men because of risk of pregnancy. (around 20% less with same qualification, same job) It's just a fact. And I'm all for gender equality :>
On March 03 2012 10:23 VPCursed wrote: well, before i say anything i'll state that I'm an atheist. It bothers me that the government is pushing religious institutions into going against there morals/faith by making them pay for peoples contraception/abortion..ect Although i do not agree with religion, I believe there is liberty at stake in this debate. Woman should have every right to choose, but with the foot on the other shoe... shouldn't religion as well? It's not as if there are only religious hospitals ;d but outside of that one tidbit i'm in support of the contraception/abortion
I agree with this. I don't see why businesses should have to subsidize contraceptives when there is access to free BC basically everywhere in the US (read: planned parenthood) and in countries with government-funded health care, what is the argument for having the taxpayer subsidize the recreational sex of others... just weird.
From Planned Parenthoods website on how to get access to birth control
First, you’ll need to get a prescription. Visit a Planned Parenthood health center, a clinic, or a private health care provider for a prescription. Your health care provider will discuss your medical history with you, check your blood pressure, and give you any other medical exam that you may need. If you need an exam, it may cost about $35–$250.
Birth control pills may be purchased with a prescription at a drugstore or clinic. They cost about $15–$50 a month.
Planned Parenthood works to make health care accessible and affordable. Some health centers are able to charge according to income. Most accept health insurance. If you qualify, Medicaid or other state programs may lower your health care costs.
Call your local Planned Parenthood health center to get specific information on costs.
There is not access to "free" birth control, it still costs the person
I guess you were thinking about hormonal contraception but you can literally walk in to planned parenthood and walk out with a fistful of condoms. That is free birth control.
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer.
Any employer could deny any form of coverage, so yes, that applies to "somewhere else".
So don't work their either? Your whole argument is predicated on some notion that all employers are going to behave irrationally in such a way that would be harmful to not only themselves but also to the insurance companies they contract with and the medical industry as a whole.
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer.
Any employer could deny any form of coverage, so yes, that applies to "somewhere else".
So don't work their either? Your whole argument is predicated on some notion that all employers are going to behave irrationally in such a way that would be harmful to not only themselves but also to the insurance companies they contract with and the medical industry as a whole.
It's not some wild notion, it would be in the self-interest of the employer. Employers can start listing things they find morally questionable, and by not including them in their health care plans they will save money. If you think employers won't cut corners at their employee's expense, you are mistaken.
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer.
i cant believe this actually needs explaining. if companies cant easily argue they dont have to provide any cover at all, because it goes against their moral convictions, people in low paid jobs will not be able to get any health coverage at all, why is this so hard to understand?
how can there be people who live in america who are so stone hearted that just because they can afford health care outside of their job, that no one else should be given some help. you're only rich because someone else is poor, why do you feel the need to be such an ass about helping people?
This has nothing to do with helping people or not helping people. Employers shouldn't be forced to provide compensation they don't want to, as long as they are working within the limits of the constitution. if they offer shitty compensation, then they won't get good employees or they won't get them for very long.
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer.
i cant believe this actually needs explaining. if companies cant easily argue they dont have to provide any cover at all, because it goes against their moral convictions, people in low paid jobs will not be able to get any health coverage at all, why is this so hard to understand?
how can there be people who live in america who are so stone hearted that just because they can afford health care outside of their job, that no one else should be given some help. you're only rich because someone else is poor, why do you feel the need to be such an ass about helping people?
This has nothing to do with helping people or not helping people. Employers shouldn't be forced to provide compensation they don't want to, as long as they are working within the limits of the constitution. if they offer shitty compensation, then they won't get good employees or they won't get them for very long.
It has everything to do with helping people. Like I said in the post above, if employers are given a green light to cut health coverage, they will, because they will make more money.
I'm happy for you that in your career you have the freedom to leave a job if the health benefits aren't to your liking. It's not an option for many people, especially those who actually need all the health-care assistance they can get.
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer.
i cant believe this actually needs explaining. if companies cant easily argue they dont have to provide any cover at all, because it goes against their moral convictions, people in low paid jobs will not be able to get any health coverage at all, why is this so hard to understand?
how can there be people who live in america who are so stone hearted that just because they can afford health care outside of their job, that no one else should be given some help. you're only rich because someone else is poor, why do you feel the need to be such an ass about helping people?
This has nothing to do with helping people or not helping people. Employers shouldn't be forced to provide compensation they don't want to, as long as they are working within the limits of the constitution. if they offer shitty compensation, then they won't get good employees or they won't get them for very long.
Wrong. People are always desperate for jobs, there is never 100% employment. If you let standards slip and "let the market decide" wages drop and benefits get worse. Employers have to be regulated or they'll screw with their employees as much as possible.
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer.
i cant believe this actually needs explaining. if companies cant easily argue they dont have to provide any cover at all, because it goes against their moral convictions, people in low paid jobs will not be able to get any health coverage at all, why is this so hard to understand?
how can there be people who live in america who are so stone hearted that just because they can afford health care outside of their job, that no one else should be given some help. you're only rich because someone else is poor, why do you feel the need to be such an ass about helping people?
This has nothing to do with helping people or not helping people. Employers shouldn't be forced to provide compensation they don't want to, as long as they are working within the limits of the constitution. if they offer shitty compensation, then they won't get good employees or they won't get them for very long.
But if the chick gets pregnant, then they have to pay for her to go on maternity leave and hire someone else...isn't it cheaper in the long run if they pay for the birth control, its only a few dollars surely.
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer.
Any employer could deny any form of coverage, so yes, that applies to "somewhere else".
So don't work their either?
Again, any employer would be able to deny coverage. That means that an unlimited amount of employers could deny the coverage that you need. People don't have an endless amount of positions open to them. There are many Americans that don't even have one.
Your whole argument is predicated on some notion that all employers are going to behave irrationally in such a way that would be harmful to not only themselves but also to the insurance companies they contract with and the medical industry as a whole.
It wouldn't be irrational at all. It would save them the cost of having to pay for it.
This is extraordinarily simple to understand. I don't know what your problem is with getting this.
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer.
i cant believe this actually needs explaining. if companies cant easily argue they dont have to provide any cover at all, because it goes against their moral convictions, people in low paid jobs will not be able to get any health coverage at all, why is this so hard to understand?
how can there be people who live in america who are so stone hearted that just because they can afford health care outside of their job, that no one else should be given some help. you're only rich because someone else is poor, why do you feel the need to be such an ass about helping people?
This has nothing to do with helping people or not helping people. Employers shouldn't be forced to provide compensation they don't want to, as long as they are working within the limits of the constitution. if they offer shitty compensation, then they won't get good employees or they won't get them for very long.
In a time with 10% of the people in your country without jobs you really dare to say something like that? Interesting ...
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer.
Any employer could deny any form of coverage, so yes, that applies to "somewhere else".
So don't work their either?
Again, any employer would be able to deny coverage. That means that an unlimited amount of employers could deny the coverage that you need. People don't have an endless amount of positions open to them. There are many Americans that don't even have one.
Your whole argument is predicated on some notion that all employers are going to behave irrationally in such a way that would be harmful to not only themselves but also to the insurance companies they contract with and the medical industry as a whole.
It wouldn't be irrational at all. It would save them the cost of having to pay for it.
This is extraordinarily simple to understand. I don't know what your problem is with getting this.
I don't see why you just ignore what I say and repeat the same non-argument over and over. Let's break it down one more time.
1. The government doesn't have the right to tell businesses what their insurance has to provide, or even that they have to provide insurance. Period.
2. If your employed doesn't offer a level of compensation that you like, then don't work there. Period.
3. Employers won't do this because people will not want to work for them. We know that this system works because there are already pay differences between different companies within the same fields. If it made sense for companies to just start axing perks and salaries "to save money," THEY WOULD ALREADY BE DOING SO, but we know that isn't true and that the free market doesn't work that way.
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want.
I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything.
Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer.
i cant believe this actually needs explaining. if companies cant easily argue they dont have to provide any cover at all, because it goes against their moral convictions, people in low paid jobs will not be able to get any health coverage at all, why is this so hard to understand?
how can there be people who live in america who are so stone hearted that just because they can afford health care outside of their job, that no one else should be given some help. you're only rich because someone else is poor, why do you feel the need to be such an ass about helping people?
This has nothing to do with helping people or not helping people. Employers shouldn't be forced to provide compensation they don't want to, as long as they are working within the limits of the constitution. if they offer shitty compensation, then they won't get good employees or they won't get them for very long.
Wrong. People are always desperate for jobs, there is never 100% employment. If you let standards slip and "let the market decide" wages drop and benefits get worse. Employers have to be regulated or they'll screw with their employees as much as possible.
You seem to be incredibly naive.
But when you do stuff like this where you legally require an employer to provide certain things to employees that they wouldn't otherwise, you just make it less appealing to hire that employee. It's the same as if you made the minimum wage a hundred dollars an hour (since otherwise businesses could just drop their wages as much as they wanted and since people can't just find another job now they can't buy food), you just push jobs away (outsourcing) or remove them entirely (layoffs). Burdens like this always get pushed onto employees/the general public at least in part.
It sounds good to just say "yeah we don't want employers being able to deny certain benefits to their employees" but it's never like the impact on the market ends right there. You can't give people more benefits for being employees without placing more burden on employers, which means less people end up getting hired in general.
On March 04 2012 03:51 Bigtony wrote: I don't see why you just ignore what I say and repeat the same non-argument over and over. Let's break it down one more time.
Oh dear.
The government doesn't have the right to tell businesses what their insurance has to provide, or even that they have to provide insurance. Period.
Why not?
If your employed doesn't offer a level of compensation that you like, then don't work there. Period.
You see, you're forcing me to repeat myself because you keep making the same mistake over and over again. Funny how my previous posts contradict your posts that come after, huh?
Again, any employer would be able to deny coverage. That means that an unlimited amount of employers could deny the coverage that you need. People don't have an endless amount of positions open to them. There are many Americans that don't even have one.
Employers won't do this because people will not want to work for them.
What choice would they have if every single employer had the option of doing it?
We know that this system works because there are already pay differences between different companies within the same fields. If it made sense for companies to just start axing perks and salaries "to save money," THEY WOULD ALREADY BE DOING SO, but we know that isn't true and that the free market doesn't work that way.
Sweetheart, they can't do it now because it would be against the law. That's what this entire issue is about, the Blunt-Rubio legislation which would allow employers to deny coverage on the basis of a 'moral objection'.
The law is silly on many, many differant levels. What does it define as religously objectionable benefits? And what would prevent an employer from defining basic procedures as religiously objectionable benefits?
I kind of like the idea actually - that a business has the right to have politically beliefs and can govern their business with those beliefs. A religious business could never be forced to pay for an abortion. A enviromentally conscious company will never be forced to use to an enviromentally unfriendly chemical. But isn't that how it is right now? I really, really don't understand the circumstances in which a business would be forced to pay for contraceptives for one of it's workers. I know that they cannot fire a pregant worker, and there are statutes in place to protect disabled/elderly workers from being discriminated. So perhaps I am confused about the law (Actually I know that I am confused), but is there a statute in place that a company has to pay for contraceptives?
On March 04 2012 04:13 cLutZ wrote: Why should Birth Control be free (with no co-pays) over other forms of drugs when it is already cheaper than most of them?
On March 04 2012 03:51 Bigtony wrote: I don't see why you just ignore what I say and repeat the same non-argument over and over. Let's break it down one more time.
We know that this system works because there are already pay differences between different companies within the same fields. If it made sense for companies to just start axing perks and salaries "to save money," THEY WOULD ALREADY BE DOING SO, but we know that isn't true and that the free market doesn't work that way.
Sweetheart, they can't do it now because it would be against the law. That's what this entire issue is about, the Blunt-Rubio legislation which would allow employers to deny coverage on the basis of a 'moral objection'.
I guess we just have a fundamental difference in our interpretation of the constitution if you think it's ok for the government to tell businesses what kind of compensation they need to offer.
You completely ignored point 3. Is there a difference between working at starbucks and dunkin donuts? Yes, there is. Why do you think that is? Because starbucks offers better compensation, so they attract better employees. Apply this to every industry.
You see, you're forcing me to repeat myself because you keep making the same mistake over and over again. Funny how my previous posts contradict your posts that come after, huh?
Again, any employer would be able to deny coverage. That means that an unlimited amount of employers could deny the coverage that you need. People don't have an endless amount of positions open to them. There are many Americans that don't even have one.
That doesn't contradict what I said and isn't relevant to my argument at all. You have the freedom to starve or make your own business if you don't like the compensation on offer. That's if such a scenario occured, which I don't think it would.
Other than that, I dont really follow the debate, but religious views shouldnt have anything do with women's choices to keep or abort a fetus.
That isn't the issue, the issue is compelling religious institutions to subsidize making recreational sex consequence-free. And compelling them to pay for medicine that causes an event they find morally abhorrent.
Should insurance plans be compelled to pay for pornography for men? If you masturbate watching Big Butts Invasion 47 instead of having sex, you're also preventing unwanted pregnancies!
On March 04 2012 04:19 Bigtony wrote: I guess we just have a fundamental difference in our interpretation of the constitution if you think it's ok for the government to tell businesses what kind of compensation they need to offer.
How is it unconstitutional? I would be shocked if you can give any semblance of an explanation.
You completely ignored point 3.
No, I responded to it directly:
Sweetheart, they can't do it now because it would be against the law. That's what this entire issue is about, the Blunt-Rubio legislation which would allow employers to deny coverage on the basis of a 'moral objection'.
Do you understand what that means? You're arguing that if it was advantageous businesses would already be doing it. I'm telling you they can't because it would be illegal. That's what legislation is, it's in order to change the law so that they could do it.
You have the freedom to starve or make your own business if you don't like the compensation on offer.
So if you can't find an employer that will give you health coverage you can either create a business(because I guess starting a business costs less money than food) or starve to death. Brilliant stuff, keep it comin'.
Other than that, I dont really follow the debate, but religious views shouldnt have anything do with women's choices to keep or abort a fetus.
That isn't the issue, the issue is compelling religious institutions to subsidize making recreational sex consequence-free. And compelling them to pay for medicine that causes an event they find morally abhorrent.
Should insurance plans be compelled to pay for pornography for men? If you masturbate watching Big Butts Invasion 47 instead of having sex, you're also preventing unwanted pregnancies!
No thats not what this is about actually, read the link in the OP about what the Blunt Bill was proposing. The Obama Health Care issue regarding religious institutions having to provide contraception was resolved- they dont have to. Its about all employers being able to remove individual things they cover based on their own personal beliefs.
And as for making recreational sex "consequence-free" I think we have gone over this point over and over again and there are more uses for birth control other than preventing pregnancy, and even if that was the only use, what is wrong with that?
How is it unconstitutional? I would be shocked if you can give any semblance of an explanation.
For the same reason the government has very limited rights in telling you as an individual what you can/can't do.
Do you understand what that means? You're arguing that if it was advantageous businesses would already be doing it. I'm telling you they can't because it would be illegal. That's what legislation is, it's in order to change the law so that they could do it.
Do you undersatnd what that means? Let me break it down for you in some words you might be able to understand. I'm telling you that you can't fucking read and are ignoring what I'm saying. There are ALREADY different levels of health coverage, pay, vacation time, perks, etc between different corporations between industries. THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING. If it was advantageous for them to just cut these things, they would be hurting themselves because they would no longer attract the best employees. Since they want to make money, they SPEND MONEY to get the best employees.
Between two different school districts they have different health, dental, perscription, etc. Different pay scales, different vacation times, etc. The better school districts spend more money and get better teachers. This already exists in real life. Good teachers don't go to shitty schools.
On March 04 2012 04:13 cLutZ wrote: Why should Birth Control be free (with no co-pays) over other forms of drugs when it is already cheaper than most of them?
What are you talking about?
Compared to other drugs, birth control is cheap. So by mandating free birth control you are implicitly stating that it is more important than those other drugs.
On March 04 2012 04:37 Bigtony wrote: For the same reason the government has very limited rights in telling you as an individual what you can/can't do.
Specifically tell me what part of the constitution it violates. Something tells me you have absolutely no idea and just assumed it was unconstitutional.
Do you undersatnd what that means? Let me break it down for you in some words you might be able to understand. I'm telling you that you can't fucking read and are ignoring what I'm saying. There are ALREADY different levels of health coverage, pay, vacation time, perks, etc between different corporations between industries. THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING.
Cupcake, you are so angry and lost. Take a couple of deep breaths and try to concentrate on what I'm telling you. The Blunt-Rubio amendment would allow any employer to deny coverage based on a 'moral objection'. That is the entire issue at hand, that is what all of us are discussing. Businesses are not currently denying in that way because they aren't able to, it would be illegal. Had the legislation passed they would be able to, but it didn't.
On March 04 2012 04:13 cLutZ wrote: Why should Birth Control be free (with no co-pays) over other forms of drugs when it is already cheaper than most of them?
What are you talking about?
Compared to other drugs, birth control is cheap. So by mandating free birth control you are implicitly stating that it is more important than those other drugs.
You're speaking about all other prescription drugs? A massive amount of them are also covered, it's not as if birth control is being given special status.
Other than that, I dont really follow the debate, but religious views shouldnt have anything do with women's choices to keep or abort a fetus.
That isn't the issue, the issue is compelling religious institutions to subsidize making recreational sex consequence-free. And compelling them to pay for medicine that causes an event they find morally abhorrent.
Should insurance plans be compelled to pay for pornography for men? If you masturbate watching Big Butts Invasion 47 instead of having sex, you're also preventing unwanted pregnancies!
It's health insurance. Sex and pregnancy (or pregnancy prevention) are important aspects of health. My employer has absolutely no right to tell me what my health insurance should and should not cover. If my doctor thinks Bigg Butts Invasion 47 is what my life needs ---- then **** you, that's what the doctor recommended.
You guys claim health should be between "doctors and their patients". I heard that phrase in the debates ALL THE TIME, when they were discussing Obamacare. And yet you want to allow health insurances companies and every random employer in the country to be able to decide what health issues are "morally" acceptable for coverage? Why?
Keep it up Repubs. This issue seemed trite at first, but it's actually doing a great job of exposing the deep intellectual dishonesty that is so entrenched in the American right-wing. It's not okay for the government to get involved in your healthcare. But churches and employers want to deny their "flock" access to "immoral" health products that actually do a lot to save lives from hardship? Oh, that's just Capitalism and American Values at work.
On March 04 2012 04:13 cLutZ wrote: Why should Birth Control be free (with no co-pays) over other forms of drugs when it is already cheaper than most of them?
What are you talking about?
Compared to other drugs, birth control is cheap. So by mandating free birth control you are implicitly stating that it is more important than those other drugs.
No one is talking about "free" birth control, only that it be covered and offered in insurance plans. It isn't "free", you're paying for your insurance.
On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote: It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses.
The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked.
You have the constitution in one hand, and you're looking at what in our country in unconstitutional.
And THIS is what you come up with? Mandating insurance-coverage for birth control?
The constitution isn't to be revered. The Second Amendment, for example, sucks. It doesn't define firearms or militias. By the Second Amendment's possible interpretations, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead.
And maybe you should go take some classes on critical thinking, and maybe one on discourse so you can learn to close your arguments without resorting to insults like this one.
I am not insulting you at all.. If anything I am insulting your government teacher for their poor teaching job on how US government works. If you hate the constitution so much why don't you move to a country that fits your idea if how a government is supposed to work and stop trying to fundamentally change the US? That would seem to be the easier choice. Like it or not that is how the government was founded and unless they have another constitutional convention that is how it's going to stay. I am just explaining facts.
Am I wrong, or did the Blunt Bill fail?
Oh, yes it did. So I'm fine. I''m not the one saying the law currently is unconstitutional. That'd be the Republicans. But the government just voted, and it disagrees. So now it's constitutional. Because that's what our politicians voted it to be. It's that simple. Just like in countless other cases, the constitution is only as good as our interpretation, which is exactly how it was meant to be.
That's why I don't have to move. Our government isn't written in stone. Maybe you're the one who needs classes, or needs to move, or needs to do whatever other generic belittling statement you come up with next.
Honestly man, you just keep showing your ignorance on this issue. It is not up to the politicians to judge constitutionality, politicians just make laws, they can make laws that are unconstitutional, although morally they shouldn't. It is up to the JUDICIAL system to judge the constitutionality not congress... Just because some congressmen vote on something and it passes doesn't mean it is automatically constitutional.
If there is an unconstitutional law it is filed and tried in court where the government is supposed to defend it and whoever is making the claim is stating why it is unconstitutional. It goes up the judicial ladder as each side opposes the ruling until it reaches the supreme court which has the ultimate ruling on the constitutionality of a law. In no way shape or form does the legislative branch or the executive branch have any say on the constitutionality of an issue.
The Supreme Court may decide, of its own volition, to rule on a law Congress has made. Some laws are simply never ruled upon. So are they unconstitutional?
But since you say it isn't the job of Congress to decide what is constitutional, well, isn't that exactly what the Blunt Bill was doing? It's proponents are arguing for the Bill on a constitutional basis.
So it seems we agree that this whole issue should never have been brought up, and since the Supreme Court has never declared the government mandating health-insurance to provide birth-control to be an unconstitutional act, it therefore isn't.
So, as I said in the beginning, arguing about the constitutionality of every bill that provides public welfare is stupid and is missing the point of practical government. But apparently you disagree, only now you seem to be arguing the point I was originally making.
So, thanks, I guess.
A law may be unconstitutional even before the judicial system agrees it is.. It's like saying someone isn't pregnant before they go to the doctor and prove they are pregnant... If no one points out laws are unconstitutional then they will never be heard by the supreme court in the first place and unconstitutional laws will be forced onto the people. The Blunt Amendment was trying to fix the constitutionality of the bill before it was heard by the judicial system. It's a matter of morals, someone who willingly tries to pass an unconstitutional law to see if it will go through has no right to be a legislator. Just throw a ton of BS laws and see what sticks is what is ruining this country. It is wasting time and it is taking away peoples rights given to them by the constitution when they actually to make it through.
So after all of your snide insults yesterday, this is where you end up? So actually Congress can decide what is constitutional -- glad we agree on that finally.
I bolded the important part, because despite all your apparent reverence for the constitution, it seems to me that ultimately this is a moral issue to you, and to the Republicans. I do not believe for a second that someone looking for things unconstitutional in this country would come up with this issue.
Cupcake, you are so angry and lost. Take a couple of deep breaths and try to concentrate on what I'm telling you. The Blunt-Rubio amendment would allow any employer to deny coverage based on a 'moral objection'. That is the entire issue at hand, that is what all of us are discussing. Businesses are not currently denying in that way because they aren't able to, it would be illegal. Had the legislation passed they would be able to, but it didn't.
Once again, just completely not understanding what I'm saying.
Let's try once more: 1. there are already differences between the coverage offered between companies. 2. If this change did happen AND companies started to make these kinds of objections, they would lose access to valuable talent. 3. This would hurt them 4. Therefore, this situation you imagine, where employers arbitrarily deny parts of coveraged just to save money, would not happen.
Like are you just trolling or you actually unable to undertand this concept?
On March 04 2012 04:59 Bigtony wrote: If this change did happen AND companies started to make these kinds of objections, they would lose access to valuable talent.
And where would that talent go? To another business that also doesn't provide the coverage? We've been over this many times but once more can't hurt:
Again, any employer would be able to deny coverage. That means that an unlimited amount of employers could deny the coverage that you need. People don't have an endless amount of positions open to them. There are many Americans that don't even have one.
Therefore, this situation you imagine, where employers arbitrarily deny parts of coveraged just to save money, would not happen.
It's not arbitrary at all, it's extremely simple. The business could claim a moral objection to coverage that they were previously forced to fund. Thus they would be saving a massive amount of money.
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick.
Cupcake, you are so angry and lost. Take a couple of deep breaths and try to concentrate on what I'm telling you. The Blunt-Rubio amendment would allow any employer to deny coverage based on a 'moral objection'. That is the entire issue at hand, that is what all of us are discussing. Businesses are not currently denying in that way because they aren't able to, it would be illegal. Had the legislation passed they would be able to, but it didn't.
Once again, just completely not understanding what I'm saying.
Let's try once more: 1. there are already differences between the coverage offered between companies. 2. If this change did happen AND companies started to make these kinds of objections, they would lose access to valuable talent. 3. This would hurt them 4. Therefore, this situation you imagine, where employers arbitrarily deny parts of coveraged just to save money, would not happen.
Like are you just trolling or you actually unable to undertand this concept?
I understand what you are saying, but in a country where employment isnt 100%, there are going to be others there to fill the role of those that couldnt take the job because of the health benefit issues. If an employer says they dont want to cover oral contraception, then all that does is eliminate females who need that and then a male or a post-monopausal woman could get the job. So yes they would maybe miss out on some high quality employees, but there would still be others to fill their role. This would just put some groups at a disadvantage in an employment market that isnt great to begin with.
I'm fine with religious institutions being able to deny coverage based on moral grounds because of separation of church and state.
But, all institutions cannot not do this. If I read correctly, it would allow them to say a big fuck you to anyone just because of their morals. I think that government needs some regulation in businesses or else they can really harm the people.
On March 04 2012 04:13 cLutZ wrote: Why should Birth Control be free (with no co-pays) over other forms of drugs when it is already cheaper than most of them?
What are you talking about?
Compared to other drugs, birth control is cheap. So by mandating free birth control you are implicitly stating that it is more important than those other drugs.
No one is talking about "free" birth control, only that it be covered and offered in insurance plans. It isn't "free", you're paying for your insurance.
You pay for coverage of statins as well, but the federal government isn't mandating that all plans cover statins without a deductible.
Also, the plans that are being debated are employer-provided plans where your employer pays for the insurance, this is because the tax code is written so you can get a really nice healthcare plan without you having to pay taxes on it that way and the employer deducts the cost just like it was wages.
There are a lot of people who are saying things that are not true about birth control and this act that are not true. Let me dispell them now.
1. Birth control is cheap While you are right in saying that the actual pill itself is relatively inexpensive, a quick google search will tell you that birth control is not over the counter. This means that it requires a doctor's prescription in order for you to purchase it. If this bill were to have passed, women would have to find an alternative way to pay for the doctor's prescription other than their health insurance. This is where the money comes from - the prescription, not the pill.
2. The public (taxpayers) would be paying too much for this. Have you ever taken a look at the associated costs of providing women with contraceptives vs. providing women with prenatal care and delivery? As a taxpayer in this public health system, I'd be looking far more to provide women with contraceptives because every time a woman gets pregnant, the costs of delivering a baby far outweigh the amount that the public sector would have to pay to get her on birth control. The delivery room itself costs over 10000 dollars and that's with vaginal birth with no C section or epidurals. The average birth these days costs around 15000 without insurance these days. 15000 dollars is enough to provide 2 women birth control for the entire length of the professional career (30 years give or take).
3. The public is paying for women to have sex This really bugs me because it's obvious that good ol' Mr. Rush does not understand anything about the way oral contraceptives work. They are not JUST for sex. It is not a pill that you take in order to be able to have free sex with anyone that you want - for this we already have condoms which are cheaper than birth control. Birth control serves a lot of good functions other than preventing a woman from accidentally having kids. Birth control promotes healthy hormone levels in women who are otherwise hormonally impaired (producing too much or too little). It also helps a woman to regulate her period, and in addition makes the pain during menstruation much more bearable. So no we're not simply paying for women to have sex. We are paying for women's overall reproductive health, so that they don't come in with massive ovarian cysts which we then have to pay for to have removed. Also notice how the government doesn't subsidize condoms - just saying.
On March 04 2012 05:24 Housemd wrote: I'm fine with religious institutions being able to deny coverage based on moral grounds because of separation of church and state.
But, all institutions cannot not do this. If I read correctly, it would allow them to say a big fuck you to anyone just because of their morals. I think that government needs some regulation in businesses or else they can really harm the people.
It's a slippery slope. I'm surprised more people aren't concerned by the precedent this sets.
man, i was hoping that he would continue to stay on that track as a possibility of getting him off the radio for good. Apparently, advertisers are still upset though.
man, i was hoping that he would continue to stay on that track as a possibility of getting him off the radio for good. Apparently, advertisers are still upset though.
Thank god the free(advertising)market he praises so much came to take his toll, and call him out on his BS by denying him cash.
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick.
Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it.
In other words, the part that is "violated" is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The burden of evidence is up to YOU to show where the Constitution allows the government to mandate what private companies provide in terms of coverage. Not the other way around.
It's sad how you spend more time being demeaning in a discussion—calling someone "Sweetheart" and "Cupcake"—than actually researching on your own. The Constitution is everywhere.
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick.
Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it.
In other words, the part that is "violated" is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The burden of evidence is up to YOU to show where the Constitution allows the government to mandate what private companies provide in terms of coverage. Not the other way around.
It's sad how you spend more time being demeaning in a discussion—calling someone "Sweetheart" and "Cupcake"—than actually researching on your own. The Constitution is everywhere.
Please familiarize yourself with it.
How it currently works:
There are no state or federal laws requiring private employers to offer health benefits to their workers. However, many employers offer health insurance as a way to attract and keep workers. When group health plans are offered, they are then subject to a variety of state mandates about what benefits must be included, unless the employer is self-insured (meaning it pays the claims costs itself, not an insurance company).
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick.
Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it.
In other words, the part that is "violated" is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The burden of evidence is up to YOU to show where the Constitution allows the government to mandate what private companies provide in terms of coverage. Not the other way around.
It's sad how you spend more time being demeaning in a discussion—calling someone "Sweetheart" and "Cupcake"—than actually researching on your own. The Constitution is everywhere.
There are no state or federal laws requiring private employers to offer health benefits to their workers. However, many employers offer health insurance as a way to attract and keep workers. When group health plans are offered, they are then subject to a variety of state mandates about what benefits must be included, unless the employer is self-insured (meaning it pays the claims costs itself, not an insurance company).
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick.
Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it.
In other words, the part that is "violated" is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The burden of evidence is up to YOU to show where the Constitution allows the government to mandate what private companies provide in terms of coverage. Not the other way around.
It's sad how you spend more time being demeaning in a discussion—calling someone "Sweetheart" and "Cupcake"—than actually researching on your own. The Constitution is everywhere.
There are no state or federal laws requiring private employers to offer health benefits to their workers. However, many employers offer health insurance as a way to attract and keep workers. When group health plans are offered, they are then subject to a variety of state mandates about what benefits must be included, unless the employer is self-insured (meaning it pays the claims costs itself, not an insurance company).
Um...I know how healthcare currently works. But thanks?
Well...you were asking where it said in the constitution that the government has the right to mandate what they include...I was clarifying how things are currently determined.
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick.
Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it.
In other words, the part that is "violated" is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The burden of evidence is up to YOU to show where the Constitution allows the government to mandate what private companies provide in terms of coverage. Not the other way around.
It's sad how you spend more time being demeaning in a discussion—calling someone "Sweetheart" and "Cupcake"—than actually researching on your own. The Constitution is everywhere.
There are no state or federal laws requiring private employers to offer health benefits to their workers. However, many employers offer health insurance as a way to attract and keep workers. When group health plans are offered, they are then subject to a variety of state mandates about what benefits must be included, unless the employer is self-insured (meaning it pays the claims costs itself, not an insurance company).
Um...I know how healthcare currently works. But thanks?
Well...you were asking where it said in the constitution that the government has the right to mandate what they include...I was clarifying how things are currently determined. No need to be rude.
I really don't see the connection between your post and my question. Sorry.
My point is that Constitutionally, the federal government has no business in healthcare reform—or more specifically, to even establish a "birth control policy." Nowhere is it written in the Constitution that the federal government has that authority. Thus, to ask what part of the Constitution is being violated shows a lack of understanding of what the Constitution is and what it does.
If somehow what you posted addresses my point, then I apologize in advance.
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick.
Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it.
In other words, the part that is "violated" is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The burden of evidence is up to YOU to show where the Constitution allows the government to mandate what private companies provide in terms of coverage. Not the other way around.
It's sad how you spend more time being demeaning in a discussion—calling someone "Sweetheart" and "Cupcake"—than actually researching on your own. The Constitution is everywhere.
There are no state or federal laws requiring private employers to offer health benefits to their workers. However, many employers offer health insurance as a way to attract and keep workers. When group health plans are offered, they are then subject to a variety of state mandates about what benefits must be included, unless the employer is self-insured (meaning it pays the claims costs itself, not an insurance company).
Um...I know how healthcare currently works. But thanks?
Well...you were asking where it said in the constitution that the government has the right to mandate what they include...I was clarifying how things are currently determined. No need to be rude.
I really don't see the connection between your post and my question. Sorry.
My point is that Constitutionally, the federal government has no business in healthcare reform—or more specifically, to even establish a "birth control policy."
If somehow what you posted addresses my point, then I apologize in advance.
It was more towards the person you were arguing with, and about the general way in which what is covered gets mandated. There is no push towards establishing a "birth control policy" either- it has been included in insurance for decades and now is being argued that it should be able to get taken away.
I would also like to state that this is being used as a shield to avoid the subject of promiscuity.
Ah... your true colors.
Seriously? You cite ovarian cysts and want to pretend this money isn't going towards people having sex?
I think your true colors are quite a bit more on display. You immediately assumed I was a mysogynist instead of understanding my true point about taxpayers subsidizing sex. Condoms and OCP alike.
I like edits, apparently: Just to add, how many young guys on this forum do you think don't enjoy women who like having tons of sex? I deeply wish there were more in the world. The line is drawn when you expect other people to pay the costs of your choices.
I guess you couldn't find that part of the Constitution which was violated, huh? You dropped that argument real quick.
Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it.
In other words, the part that is "violated" is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The burden of evidence is up to YOU to show where the Constitution allows the government to mandate what private companies provide in terms of coverage. Not the other way around.
It's sad how you spend more time being demeaning in a discussion—calling someone "Sweetheart" and "Cupcake"—than actually researching on your own. The Constitution is everywhere.
There are no state or federal laws requiring private employers to offer health benefits to their workers. However, many employers offer health insurance as a way to attract and keep workers. When group health plans are offered, they are then subject to a variety of state mandates about what benefits must be included, unless the employer is self-insured (meaning it pays the claims costs itself, not an insurance company).
Um...I know how healthcare currently works. But thanks?
Well...you were asking where it said in the constitution that the government has the right to mandate what they include...I was clarifying how things are currently determined. No need to be rude.
I really don't see the connection between your post and my question. Sorry.
My point is that Constitutionally, the federal government has no business in healthcare reform—or more specifically, to even establish a "birth control policy."
If somehow what you posted addresses my point, then I apologize in advance.
It was more towards the person you were arguing with, and about the general way in which what is covered gets mandated. There is no push towards establishing a "birth control policy" either- it has been included in insurance for decades and now is being argued that it should be able to get taken away.
Wrong. The Blunt Bill specifically addresses recent changes made by the federal government's policies on contraception. It is not an attempt to take it away from "decade-old" policies in which it is already included.
On March 04 2012 00:45 SimDawg wrote: I find it hard to imagine someone loving Catholic education but hating so much of the culture.
I would also like to state that this is being used as a shield to avoid the subject of promiscuity.
Ah... your true colors.
Seriously? You cite ovarian cysts and want to pretend this money isn't going towards people having sex?
I think your true colors are quite a bit more on display. You immediately assumed I was a mysogynist instead of understanding my true point about taxpayers subsidizing sex. Condoms and OCP alike.
There's nothing wrong with sex.
Without contraception cheaply available, the costs goes back onto society, as it will lead to an increasing chance of women making babies that they cannot afford and falling into poverty as a result.
The reason why 3rd world African countries can't get out of a vicious cycle of poverty is because the religious charities are against contraception. As a result, the child birth rates in these countries are astronomically higher than in first world countries, and these women, already in poverty and force to support a families they cannot afford, continue the perpetual cycle of poverty.
If the answer was as simple as "don't have sex", then we wouldn't have 3rd world countries that are in the gutter.
On March 04 2012 12:03 paralleluniverse wrote: Without contraception cheaply available, the costs goes back onto society, as it will lead to an increasing chance of women making babies that they cannot afford and falling into poverty as a result.
The reason why 3rd world African countries can't get out of a vicious cycle of poverty is because the religious charities are against contraception. As a result, the child birth rates in these countries are astronomically higher than in first world countries, and these women, already in poverty and force to support a families they cannot afford, continue the perpetual cycle of poverty.
If the answer was as simple as "don't have sex", then we wouldn't have 3rd world countries that are in the gutter.
Woah woah woah. There are plenty of other reasons why 3rd world countries are impoverished. Lack of property rights, poor state institutions, no access to health care... it takes more than proper contraception policies to end third world poverty.
On March 04 2012 12:03 paralleluniverse wrote:There's nothing wrong with sex.
Completely agree. I'm surprised that so many object to something that we are biologically programmed to do. Unfortunately, religious extremists are rarely satisfied by evolutionary arguments.
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church that any unnatural contraceptives are intrinsically evil. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives to their employees is a direct violation of the Catholic rules for contraceptives.
On March 04 2012 12:03 paralleluniverse wrote: Without contraception cheaply available, the costs goes back onto society, as it will lead to an increasing chance of women making babies that they cannot afford and falling into poverty as a result.
The reason why 3rd world African countries can't get out of a vicious cycle of poverty is because the religious charities are against contraception. As a result, the child birth rates in these countries are astronomically higher than in first world countries, and these women, already in poverty and force to support a families they cannot afford, continue the perpetual cycle of poverty.
If the answer was as simple as "don't have sex", then we wouldn't have 3rd world countries that are in the gutter.
Woah woah woah. There are plenty of other reasons why 3rd world countries are impoverished. Lack of property rights, poor state institutions, no access to health care... it takes more than proper contraception policies to end third world poverty.
On March 04 2012 12:03 paralleluniverse wrote:There's nothing wrong with sex.
Completely agree. I'm surprised that so many object to something that we are biologically programmed to do. Unfortunately, religious extremists are rarely satisfied by evolutionary arguments.
I'm certainly not suggesting that lack of access to contraception is the only cause of 3rd world poverty, but it is a significant cause. The lack of access to contraception perpetuates this poverty with a negative feedback loop, unlike, say, lack of property rights, which merely contributes to the problem.
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church that any unnatural contraceptives are intrinsically evil. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives to their employees is a direct violation of the Catholic rules for contraceptives.
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church that any unnatural contraceptives are intrinsically evil. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives to their employees is a direct violation of the Catholic rules for contraceptives.
So what?
In America it is illegal to force someone to do something that is against their religion.
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church that any unnatural contraceptives are intrinsically evil. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives to their employees is a direct violation of the Catholic rules for contraceptives.
So what?
In America it is illegal to force someone to do something that is against their religion.
Really? Where does it say that?
Yet somehow your country managed to abolish slavery.
So if I invented a religion that required weekly human ritual sacrifices, I couldn't be charged with murder?
On March 04 2012 12:03 paralleluniverse wrote: Without contraception cheaply available, the costs goes back onto society, as it will lead to an increasing chance of women making babies that they cannot afford and falling into poverty as a result.
The reason why 3rd world African countries can't get out of a vicious cycle of poverty is because the religious charities are against contraception. As a result, the child birth rates in these countries are astronomically higher than in first world countries, and these women, already in poverty and force to support a families they cannot afford, continue the perpetual cycle of poverty.
If the answer was as simple as "don't have sex", then we wouldn't have 3rd world countries that are in the gutter.
Woah woah woah. There are plenty of other reasons why 3rd world countries are impoverished. Lack of property rights, poor state institutions, no access to health care... it takes more than proper contraception policies to end third world poverty.
Proper birth control has been the HUGEST asset to third world countries. Population control, control of STDs. We actually have the luxury of arguing whether birth control is actual medicine in this country (although I still find it retarded to say it isn't), but in third world countries such as many in Africa this discussion would not be taking place because despite whatever the Bible or the Constitution may say, birth control is a huge asset for society at large. Its benefits literally immeasurable.
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church that any unnatural contraceptives are intrinsically evil. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives to their employees is a direct violation of the Catholic rules for contraceptives.
Too much misinformation in this thread. No one is forcing Catholic hospitals to physically provide contraceptives to their employees. The reform would force the insurance carriers of religious institutions to include contraceptives as part of their coverage policies, increasing the costs. Now, of course, there are exemptions, but that is beside the point.
I just want to bring this up because I think it's a valid point.
Aren't there religions that oppose things like surgery? I know for sure there's ones that oppose things like blood transfusions. What about those examples?
It feels like, to me, that if you support the right to refuse contraceptives, then you have to support the right to refuse blood transfusions, surgeries, basically any (what I consider) lunatic religious stipulation by any minor or major organized religion.
And that seems a bit much. So where do you draw the line? And why choose to draw the line at women's contraceptives?
should birth control be allowed in general? yes. should the government pay for your birth control? no. is abortion murder? depends on your opinion.
there is no reason for birth control to be banned, and it never will be no matter how many poloticians try, anyone with half a brain knows nothing like that will be passed ever.
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church that any unnatural contraceptives are intrinsically evil. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives to their employees is a direct violation of the Catholic rules for contraceptives.
Too much misinformation in this thread. No one is forcing Catholic hospitals to physically provide contraceptives to their employees. The reform would force the insurance carriers of religious institutions to include contraceptives as part of their coverage policies, increasing the costs. Now, of course, there are exemptions, but that is beside the point.
On March 04 2012 13:07 Luepert wrote:In America it is illegal to force someone to do something that is against their religion.
Freedom of religion is the freedom to believe and not the freedom to act. I can believe in a religion that justifies slavery/murder/etc. however, I am not free to act upon my beliefs, since acting upon my beliefs infringes on the freedoms of others.
The argument for insurance-funded contraception is the same concept. While religious groups believe contraception is morally wrong, they should not infringe on the freedoms of the non-religious by imposing their belief on others.
On March 04 2012 13:02 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm certainly not suggesting that lack of access to contraception is the only cause of 3rd world poverty, but it is a significant cause. The lack of access to contraception perpetuates this poverty with a negative feedback loop, unlike, say, lack of property rights, which merely contributes to the problem.
Lack of enforcable property rights is often cited as the primary cause for lack of economic development. Without property rights, there is no incentive to work, and thus no economic activity. Lack of economic activity leads to less availible work and so forth, leading to a viscious negative feedback loop.
Lack of contraception is also a negative feedback loop, but it is much much less of an effect than other factors (property rights, lack of govt institutions, etc). In the times before contraception, civilizations have risen out of poverty without the morning-after pill. The same can't be said for enforcable property rights.
I still can't get the image out of the my head, where you had an all male panel at a Congressional hearing discussing women's rights. It is disgusting for it to be that normalized where men can so brazenly discuss women's issues and feel like they are in the right. But the speakers were all religious leaders and so many religions are based on intrinsically placing men above women. But can you imagine a political debate over Viagra and only women being called to testify on it?
On March 04 2012 13:14 Leporello wrote: Proper birth control has been the HUGEST asset to third world countries. Population control, control of STDs. We actually have the luxury of arguing whether birth control is actual medicine in this country (although I still find it retarded to say it isn't), but in third world countries such as many in Africa this discussion would not be taking place because despite whatever the Bible or the Constitution may say, birth control is a huge asset for society at large. Its benefits literally immeasurable.
Do you honestly believe that the morning-after pill can solve third world poverty? I understand that this is a thread on contraception, but this is just silly. Contraception policies help, but they can't measure up to sound economic and legal reform.
On March 04 2012 13:14 Leporello wrote: Proper birth control has been the HUGEST asset to third world countries. Population control, control of STDs. We actually have the luxury of arguing whether birth control is actual medicine in this country (although I still find it retarded to say it isn't), but in third world countries such as many in Africa this discussion would not be taking place because despite whatever the Bible or the Constitution may say, birth control is a huge asset for society at large. Its benefits literally immeasurable.
Do you honestly believe that the morning-after pill can solve third world poverty? I understand that this is a thread on contraception, but this is just silly. Contraception policies help, but they can't measure up to sound economic and legal reform.
But they do help. Do we need ask by how much? They're necessary. It isn't even a matter of "help", these countries 100% absolutely have to give its citizens contraception regardless of religion or constitutional restraints. Overpopulation, hunger, STDs, 100% demand contraception. It is medicine, pure and simple. This conversation would be ridiculous in regards to these countries, from any practical standpoint. To hell with insurance, give out contraception. Make it actually free and readily available. That's been a policy that's been of benefit to these countries. And it probably wouldn't hurt here either.
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.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church that any unnatural contraceptives are intrinsically evil. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraceptives to their employees is a direct violation of the Catholic rules for contraceptives.
Too much misinformation in this thread. No one is forcing Catholic hospitals to physically provide contraceptives to their employees. The reform would force the insurance carriers of religious institutions to include contraceptives as part of their coverage policies, increasing the costs. Now, of course, there are exemptions, but that is beside the point.
I had a raving rant about money and this crap but i lost it in browser closing on me
I find it silly that people talk about forcing people to do things, when quite a few major religions have strong teaching of "spreading the word" essentially covert people. Weird how one sided things are. Employer rights vs employee rights. Either way it's silly to live and interact in a society and bitchin how people complain how one acts in said society. anyways i thought of this http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,100175,00.html
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
Some women become pregnant against their will may i remind you. Then what? That is not their fault.
This thread is just freaking silly. The crappy OP does not even touch upon what the actual debate is about and the TL.net group of militants who believe they know better than everyone come in to shit all over the right... again. Some people in the last few pages have actually explained rather well, but the majority is bandwagoners who come in to say "OMG religious pplz are assholes"
Here's the freaking issue. Obamacare includes a mandate that all (non-catholic) employers provide contraception in their healthcare plan. Some people don't want this because they believe they should have the option of a non-contraception providing plan (which would obviously be slightly cheaper). The majority of the debate (And all of the meaningful debate) is economical. Those who make it into something not economical clearly have an agenda.
And here's my take on the issue: The blunt bill is kind of useless. The arguments brought up against Obama's contraception plan are that gov. subsidized contraception would get much more expensive and drive up the insurance costs so much that it would inconvenience people. They propose an alternate plan, where the employee gets the option not to buy into the contraception plan. However, this is not an effective solution, because:
1: The administrative cost to each company for offering these multiple plans would be greater than the cost of the contraception in the first place, so no money would be saved. 2: Though contraception would now be included in the plans, demand would not go up. The women who use it now would continue to use it, the women who don't will continue not to. And basic economics tells us that if demand does not increase, neither does price.
So, yes, I think that the republicans are wrong. But no, it's not because they are evil, stupid, god-loving men who don't want anyone to have sex ever (as so many of you would like to think) It's because their economics are flawed.
On March 04 2012 13:14 Leporello wrote: Proper birth control has been the HUGEST asset to third world countries. Population control, control of STDs. We actually have the luxury of arguing whether birth control is actual medicine in this country (although I still find it retarded to say it isn't), but in third world countries such as many in Africa this discussion would not be taking place because despite whatever the Bible or the Constitution may say, birth control is a huge asset for society at large. Its benefits literally immeasurable.
Do you honestly believe that the morning-after pill can solve third world poverty? I understand that this is a thread on contraception, but this is just silly. Contraception policies help, but they can't measure up to sound economic and legal reform.
Yes.
The empowerment of women can fix 3rd world poverty. Contraception is a large part of that.
On March 04 2012 16:13 ampson wrote: This thread is just freaking silly. The crappy OP does not even touch upon what the actual debate is about and the TL.net group of militants who believe they know better than everyone come in to shit all over the right... again. Some people in the last few pages have actually explained rather well, but the majority is bandwagoners who come in to say "OMG religious pplz are assholes"
Here's the freaking issue. Obamacare includes a mandate that all (non-catholic) employers provide contraception in their healthcare plan. Some people don't want this because they believe they should have the option of a non-contraception providing plan (which would obviously be slightly cheaper). The majority of the debate (And all of the meaningful debate) is economical. Those who make it into something not economical clearly have an agenda.
And here's my take on the issue: The blunt bill is kind of useless. The arguments brought up against Obama's contraception plan are that gov. subsidized contraception would get much more expensive and drive up the insurance costs so much that it would inconvenience people. They propose an alternate plan, where the employee gets the option not to buy into the contraception plan. However, this is not an effective solution, because:
1: The administrative cost to each company for offering these multiple plans would be greater than the cost of the contraception in the first place, so no money would be saved. 2: Though contraception would now be included in the plans, demand would not go up. The women who use it now would continue to use it, the women who don't will continue not to. And basic economics tells us that if demand does not increase, neither does price.
So, yes, I think that the republicans are wrong. But no, it's not because they are evil, stupid, god-loving men who don't want anyone to have sex ever (as so many of you would like to think) It's because their economics are flawed.
Thats because the "crappy OP" wasnt trying to debate obama health care as a whole. Maybe you can go make or seek out a thread that is doing that. The OP was written about the mere fact that in the year 2012 we are having a bunch of men decide when or how a woman should have access to birth control. I never specified republicans or religious people or called them evil in any way in the OP, in fact I was speaking out against this type of language in politics in general. And you havent said anything that anybody else hasnt said so I dont understand what point you are trying to make.
And its silly to think that this is purely an economic debate, you live in a world where economic decisions actually impact the lives of people.
On March 04 2012 16:13 ampson wrote: This thread is just freaking silly. The crappy OP does not even touch upon what the actual debate is about and the TL.net group of militants who believe they know better than everyone come in to shit all over the right... again. Some people in the last few pages have actually explained rather well, but the majority is bandwagoners who come in to say "OMG religious pplz are assholes"
Here's the freaking issue. Obamacare includes a mandate that all (non-catholic) employers provide contraception in their healthcare plan. Some people don't want this because they believe they should have the option of a non-contraception providing plan (which would obviously be slightly cheaper). The majority of the debate (And all of the meaningful debate) is economical. Those who make it into something not economical clearly have an agenda.
And here's my take on the issue: The blunt bill is kind of useless. The arguments brought up against Obama's contraception plan are that gov. subsidized contraception would get much more expensive and drive up the insurance costs so much that it would inconvenience people. They propose an alternate plan, where the employee gets the option not to buy into the contraception plan. However, this is not an effective solution, because:
1: The administrative cost to each company for offering these multiple plans would be greater than the cost of the contraception in the first place, so no money would be saved. 2: Though contraception would now be included in the plans, demand would not go up. The women who use it now would continue to use it, the women who don't will continue not to. And basic economics tells us that if demand does not increase, neither does price.
So, yes, I think that the republicans are wrong. But no, it's not because they are evil, stupid, god-loving men who don't want anyone to have sex ever (as so many of you would like to think) It's because their economics are flawed.
Thats because the "crappy OP" wasnt trying to debate health care. Maybe you can go make or seek out a thread that is doing that. The OP was written about the mere fact that in the year 2012 we are having a bunch of men decide when or how a woman should have access to birth control. I never specified republicans or religious people or called them evil in any way in the OP, in fact I was speaking out against this type of language in politics in general. And you havent said anything that anybody else hasnt said so I dont understand what point you are trying to make.
And its silly to think that this is purely an economic debate, you live in a world where economic decisions actually impact the lives of people.
OP gives the blunt bill+Limbaugh being an idiot as a premise and then asks what this means about health care and political discourse. It clearly means nothing. However, the thread is titled "The Contraception Coverage Debate in the U.S." So I talked about the debate. The only part of the "debate" that the OP addresses is the little part about the Blunt Bill not passing. So yes, for the title of the thread, it's a crappy OP. The thread would be fine if it was entitled "Blunt Bill fails, Rush Limbaugh makes offensive comments." And, if that were the title, you could actually get across your message "speaking out against this type of language in politics in general." Although, then it would still be wrong, as Rush Limbaugh is not a politician (he is a political commentator AT BEST. Sensationalist talk-show host is more like it).
Another point that you make about "the mere fact that in the year 2012 we are having a bunch of men decide when or how a woman should have access to birth control" is what I think is some sort of argument for libertarianism, which could be valid (though a different argument altogether) Otherwise I'd have to assume that you think we should have women in government deciding this. But I'm sure that you know that these men are discussing this because they were elected to office, not because they are men. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're pro-libertarian. However, you yourself say that that discussing libertarianism vs. what we have now is not the purpose of this thread, so I don't know why you bring it up in the first place.
On March 04 2012 16:13 ampson wrote: This thread is just freaking silly. The crappy OP does not even touch upon what the actual debate is about and the TL.net group of militants who believe they know better than everyone come in to shit all over the right... again. Some people in the last few pages have actually explained rather well, but the majority is bandwagoners who come in to say "OMG religious pplz are assholes"
Here's the freaking issue. Obamacare includes a mandate that all (non-catholic) employers provide contraception in their healthcare plan. Some people don't want this because they believe they should have the option of a non-contraception providing plan (which would obviously be slightly cheaper). The majority of the debate (And all of the meaningful debate) is economical. Those who make it into something not economical clearly have an agenda.
And here's my take on the issue: The blunt bill is kind of useless. The arguments brought up against Obama's contraception plan are that gov. subsidized contraception would get much more expensive and drive up the insurance costs so much that it would inconvenience people. They propose an alternate plan, where the employee gets the option not to buy into the contraception plan. However, this is not an effective solution, because:
1: The administrative cost to each company for offering these multiple plans would be greater than the cost of the contraception in the first place, so no money would be saved. 2: Though contraception would now be included in the plans, demand would not go up. The women who use it now would continue to use it, the women who don't will continue not to. And basic economics tells us that if demand does not increase, neither does price.
So, yes, I think that the republicans are wrong. But no, it's not because they are evil, stupid, god-loving men who don't want anyone to have sex ever (as so many of you would like to think) It's because their economics are flawed.
Thats because the "crappy OP" wasnt trying to debate health care. Maybe you can go make or seek out a thread that is doing that. The OP was written about the mere fact that in the year 2012 we are having a bunch of men decide when or how a woman should have access to birth control. I never specified republicans or religious people or called them evil in any way in the OP, in fact I was speaking out against this type of language in politics in general. And you havent said anything that anybody else hasnt said so I dont understand what point you are trying to make.
And its silly to think that this is purely an economic debate, you live in a world where economic decisions actually impact the lives of people.
OP gives the blunt bill+Limbaugh being an idiot as a premise and then asks what this means about health care and political discourse. It clearly means nothing. However, the thread is titled "The Contraception Coverage Debate in the U.S." So I talked about the debate. The only part of the "debate" that the OP addresses is the little part about the Blunt Bill not passing. So yes, for the title of the thread, it's a crappy OP. The thread would be fine if it was entitled "Blunt Bill fails, Rush Limbaugh makes offensive comments." And, if that were the title, you could actually get across your message "speaking out against this type of language in politics in general." Although, then it would still be wrong, as Rush Limbaugh is not a politician (he is a political commentator AT BEST. Sensationalist talk-show host is more like it).
Another point that you make about "the mere fact that in the year 2012 we are having a bunch of men decide when or how a woman should have access to birth control" is what I think is some sort of argument for libertarianism, which could be valid (though a different argument altogether) Otherwise I'd have to assume that you think we should have women in government deciding this. But I'm sure that you know that these men are discussing this because they were elected to office, not because they are men. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're pro-libertarian. However, you yourself say that that discussing libertarianism vs. what we have now is not the purpose of this thread, so I don't know why you bring it up in the first place.
How does the Blunt Bill have nothing to do with health care and politics, that makes no sense. It was a bill that would allow employers to decide what they wanted to cover on moral grounds. This is not "purely economic" as you argued, and certainly fits in to your definition of it simply being an "agenda"
As for your defending the all male panel, why not include relevant parties like doctors, male or female alike? Why is the government or employers having any say about specific medicine that has already been used safely for a very long time. And Im pretty sure nobody elected a bunch of catholic bishops, which is who made up a large part of the discussion.
The empowerment of women can fix 3rd world poverty. Contraception is a large part of that.
Correct. Getting women out of the animalistic cycle of birthing children over and over again is a big part of their empowerment, and getting equal rights to men is one of the biggest contributors to progression out of poverty. This has been shown time and time again.
After watching Fridays O'reilly factor I have to vehemently disagree with his approach to Birth control and the thought process behind it.
It seems to me that Mr. O'reilly is preying upon the prudish nature of his core followers, primarily older republicans. I am an economical conservative and libertarian but to think that the price tag of birth control would weigh heavily on Obamacare (which is a horrible bill btw) is rediculous. Because sex is THE driving force for our race (and every race for that matter) it is ignorant to believe that people will abstain, especially when there really isn't a good reason to do so. That combined with the other properties of birth control (regulation of period etc) and it seems worth it to cover birth control in a bill that is already a form of government control.
One other thing to note is how Mrs. Fluke presented the prohibitive cost of birth control. She lumped the cost of it into 1 (presumably 5 year span) bill. if you break that down into monthly 3k/60 you get $50 a month, which still seems high to me (I thought it was like 30).
All in all this seems like political nonsense. We are already being forced to eat the shit sandwich that is forced healthcare and now taking away this ridiculously small portion of said bill really doesn't do anything but make our politicians look petty.
Edit:
On March 04 2012 16:13 ampson wrote: This thread is just freaking silly. The crappy OP does not even touch upon what the actual debate is about and the TL.net group of militants who believe they know better than everyone come in to shit all over the right... again. Some people in the last few pages have actually explained rather well, but the majority is bandwagoners who come in to say "OMG religious pplz are assholes"
Here's the freaking issue. Obamacare includes a mandate that all (non-catholic) employers provide contraception in their healthcare plan. Some people don't want this because they believe they should have the option of a non-contraception providing plan (which would obviously be slightly cheaper). The majority of the debate (And all of the meaningful debate) is economical. Those who make it into something not economical clearly have an agenda.
And here's my take on the issue: The blunt bill is kind of useless. The arguments brought up against Obama's contraception plan are that gov. subsidized contraception would get much more expensive and drive up the insurance costs so much that it would inconvenience people. They propose an alternate plan, where the employee gets the option not to buy into the contraception plan. However, this is not an effective solution, because:
1: The administrative cost to each company for offering these multiple plans would be greater than the cost of the contraception in the first place, so no money would be saved. 2: Though contraception would now be included in the plans, demand would not go up. The women who use it now would continue to use it, the women who don't will continue not to. And basic economics tells us that if demand does not increase, neither does price.
So, yes, I think that the republicans are wrong. But no, it's not because they are evil, stupid, god-loving men who don't want anyone to have sex ever (as so many of you would like to think) It's because their economics are flawed.
I really don't care about anything you said except the 2. part. Basic economics may tell us that the price of a product is a direct result of it's supply/demand but that does not take into account government pricing. If you work for a multi millionare and he tells you to get something done, don't bother him with the details and make sure it is correct, if you do all of that you get a bonus, do you think you are going to bid the job at a lower price to get a mediocre service, quickly or are you going to give the job to the company that can do the service quickly for hiqh quality but costs a lot. Simply put you will do the one that saves your job and gets you a bonus. That is essentially what happens to the government. It is not a politicians problem that something is expensive, it is his/her problem however if that thing is delayed or of poor quality (sadly this doesn't seem to be true with government websites). This point refers back to the $16 muffins that were recently on the news and plenty of other examples.
nothing new considering rush is a demon spawn who is probably extremely gay ( nothing wrong with being gay, but going anti-gay being gay is ... ). Actually, Bill Hicks described rush limbaugh nicely enough, check it out. It's funny how as of late many anti-gay preachers are found gay, how many anti porn guys are into really sick porn stuff ( with the "bug" that occurred on YouPorn revealing account details ), and remember all of this guys are public officials.
Also about birth control, I think Carlin explains it best:
Edit: Oh and by the way I'm totally against mainstream feminism.
I am not a state official neither an employer. but from my part contraception doesn;t fit the box "necessary medical help". personally i find contraception a luxury item, and it shouldn't be mandatory for employers to pay for it.
i use condoms but never have i been sponsored these condoms. i buy them from the pharmacy for a steep price. i wouldn;t really have it any other way.
then again there are free condoms everywhere in clinics/hospitals so people who cannto afford them have access to them.
these women want contraception provided for them by the employer/government?
sure if they need it for medical reasons like cysts etc they can make their case and get their funding. but getting the pill to avoid getting preggors is a privilege not a right. it is like having a guy with a deformed(but totally healthy) face come in and ask for money for his cometic surgery. it is needed sure, is it necessary? nope.
On March 03 2012 05:28 mastergriggy wrote: I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Edit: As someone else earlier pointed out, birth control really isn't all about sex. One of the girls I used to date had periods that would black her out. BC really helped her with that.
On March 04 2012 22:50 brokor wrote: sure if they need it for medical reasons like cysts etc they can make their case and get their funding. but getting the pill to avoid getting preggors is a privilege not a right. it is like having a guy with a deformed(but totally healthy) face come in and ask for money for his cometic surgery. it is needed sure, is it necessary? nope.
You know in England where we arguably have a better system (shit is free or subsadised) if you have a seriously deformed face, you can get cosmetic surgery for free if you can prove that it negatively affects your life. obviously if your just butt ugly you dont get it, but if your face got burned in a horrible chemical attack, then it is free.
Birth control in England is free for students and U25's, other wise its a prescription charge (6pound). Why o Why can't americans realise that putting a price on health is a seriously bad idea
On March 04 2012 22:50 brokor wrote: I am not a state official neither an employer. but from my part contraception doesn;t fit the box "necessary medical help". personally i find contraception a luxury item, and it shouldn't be mandatory for employers to pay for it.
i use condoms but never have i been sponsored these condoms. i buy them from the pharmacy for a steep price. i wouldn;t really have it any other way.
then again there are free condoms everywhere in clinics/hospitals so people who cannto afford them have access to them.
these women want contraception provided for them by the employer/government?
sure if they need it for medical reasons like cysts etc they can make their case and get their funding. but getting the pill to avoid getting preggors is a privilege not a right. it is like having a guy with a deformed(but totally healthy) face come in and ask for money for his cometic surgery. it is needed sure, is it necessary? nope.
Condoms do cost a lot of money when I buy them from the local CVS. I'm pretty happy when my university (or health center, or pretty much anywhere else) gives them out for free.
It would be pretty cool if women had that same luxury- especially since their birth control helps them medically far more than condoms help us- wouldn't it?
Why do shock artists like this guy who say nothing but outlandishly controversial things that even they don't believe have such a massive audience in the US?
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
User was warned for this post
I'm day dreaming right now. How the. We should cut one of your finger, for everytime you wasted some precious, will of god, sperm of yours masturbating to your class mate at night then. Nah but how is this even a question, how can someone still think there is a difference between men and women? Yeah they're unlucky, they're the ones having the possibility to get knocked up, so if you want to punish abortion, you should punish men who have sex without the intent of founding a family, I mean how fucking obviously wrong is that. I'm open minded, I'm up for debate and ideas, but fuck no not on this, this is such... Ah fuck it I dont even have to explain, there is no opinion on that matter just normal healthy minded people and idiots, sorry to say but thats it
On March 05 2012 00:30 Seraphone wrote: Why do shock artists like this guy who say nothing but outlandishly controversial things that even they don't believe have such a massive audience in the US?
Because deep down, people like to be offended. It gives them the opportunity to be self-righteous.
I don't understand why people can't view healthcare like any other necessary but market-provided service, like shoes. Everyone needs shoes, but we have a free market in those!
The problem is that there are certain public goods that the free market may not provide, but would be beneficial overall if they were provided. Roads, healthcare, research&development, etc. The reason why these items may not be provided by the free market is because they are not necessarily profitable to an individual (even though they may be profitable to society as a whole). So, for example, it may almost never be economical for health insurance agencies to provide care to certain individuals or for certain problems. So we enter a situation in which the market forces may not create competition leading to optimal health insurance plans, but perhaps leads to suboptimal, but highly profitable health insurance plans.
Now perhaps you may say that health insurance providers should never be forced to provide any care that is not profitable. You may even say such a thing is morally wrong. Fair point, but now we have a less healthy population which has much larger ramifications than any individual. If profit and the gain of wealth for individuals is the only purpose of the economy and free market, then I concede that you are correct. However, I do not believe that is the case.
That's not even an argument.
"The market cannot provide these services because the market cannot provide these services."
Everything is profitable to individuals. If there is demand, there is a potential for profit. It used to be we had a free market in healthcare, and it worked just fine (1940s and 1950s). Many private roads were built in the 1700/1800s. If government was needed for R&D explain all the innovations that occurred in the 1800s without any government assistance.
Your argument is the typical statist nonsense that is propagated through public school textbooks. It's time for you to think above a kindergarten level.
My study of economics, by the way, comes from reading people such as Heilbroner, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Levine, Keynes, etc.
Perhaps then you should read Friedman (Milton and David), Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Walter Block, Bob Murphy, Tom DiLorenzo, and Joe Salerno. The fact that you even lump Smith with Marx makes me laugh. Marx is to economics as coloring books are to great literature.
On March 05 2012 05:25 Revelatus wrote: Last night I came in a sock. It was essentially genocide! Millions of potential human beings, killed in seconds.
All jokes aside, Christianity and all related religions need to end and they need to take their fucked up 12th century sense of morality with them.
And what happens when religons end, while pepole stay the same?
On March 05 2012 05:25 Revelatus wrote: Last night I came in a sock. It was essentially genocide! Millions of potential human beings, killed in seconds.
All jokes aside, Christianity and all related religions need to end and they need to take their fucked up 12th century sense of morality with them.
And what happens when religons end, while pepole stay the same?
On March 05 2012 05:25 Revelatus wrote: Last night I came in a sock. It was essentially genocide! Millions of potential human beings, killed in seconds.
All jokes aside, Christianity and all related religions need to end and they need to take their fucked up 12th century sense of morality with them.
And what happens when religons end, while pepole stay the same?
By definition impossible.
So... is religon a physical aspect of most humans? If so, how will it disappear? And if it isn't, why shouldn't pepole stay relatively the same? And by that I mean behavior wise, they will have the same intelligence, same ignorance, same xenophobia, but this time it would be diracted by different rules.
On March 04 2012 07:44 Zerksys wrote: There are a lot of people who are saying things that are not true about birth control and this act that are not true. Let me dispell them now.
1. Birth control is cheap While you are right in saying that the actual pill itself is relatively inexpensive, a quick google search will tell you that birth control is not over the counter. This means that it requires a doctor's prescription in order for you to purchase it. If this bill were to have passed, women would have to find an alternative way to pay for the doctor's prescription other than their health insurance. This is where the money comes from - the prescription, not the pill.
2. The public (taxpayers) would be paying too much for this. Have you ever taken a look at the associated costs of providing women with contraceptives vs. providing women with prenatal care and delivery? As a taxpayer in this public health system, I'd be looking far more to provide women with contraceptives because every time a woman gets pregnant, the costs of delivering a baby far outweigh the amount that the public sector would have to pay to get her on birth control. The delivery room itself costs over 10000 dollars and that's with vaginal birth with no C section or epidurals. The average birth these days costs around 15000 without insurance these days. 15000 dollars is enough to provide 2 women birth control for the entire length of the professional career (30 years give or take).
3. The public is paying for women to have sex This really bugs me because it's obvious that good ol' Mr. Rush does not understand anything about the way oral contraceptives work. They are not JUST for sex. It is not a pill that you take in order to be able to have free sex with anyone that you want - for this we already have condoms which are cheaper than birth control. Birth control serves a lot of good functions other than preventing a woman from accidentally having kids. Birth control promotes healthy hormone levels in women who are otherwise hormonally impaired (producing too much or too little). It also helps a woman to regulate her period, and in addition makes the pain during menstruation much more bearable. So no we're not simply paying for women to have sex. We are paying for women's overall reproductive health, so that they don't come in with massive ovarian cysts which we then have to pay for to have removed. Also notice how the government doesn't subsidize condoms - just saying.
Best post in the whole thread, and it gets ignored because people prefer to argue over issues rather than solve them.
Contraceptive is expensive? yes .. because your insurance companies make it expensive, just like most american healthcare products. If your health system wasn't run for profit, then this wouldn't even be an issue.
There are many reasons for woman to take contraception, even if they are not sexually active. Zerksys there ^^ writes it better than I could, but I suggest everyone saying "it's just so woman can screw around" how about go ask your wives or girlfriends, sisters, mums any female.. and actually get a real answer.
The american health system is rotten to core, and every time someone tries to be change something about it, for better or worse, it causes a huge issue.
Edit to say, the pills are cheap, so why can't getting the prescription off the doctor for something that everyone should be allowed access to be cheaper.
On March 04 2012 07:44 Zerksys wrote: There are a lot of people who are saying things that are not true about birth control and this act that are not true. Let me dispell them now.
1. Birth control is cheap While you are right in saying that the actual pill itself is relatively inexpensive, a quick google search will tell you that birth control is not over the counter. This means that it requires a doctor's prescription in order for you to purchase it. If this bill were to have passed, women would have to find an alternative way to pay for the doctor's prescription other than their health insurance. This is where the money comes from - the prescription, not the pill.
2. The public (taxpayers) would be paying too much for this. Have you ever taken a look at the associated costs of providing women with contraceptives vs. providing women with prenatal care and delivery? As a taxpayer in this public health system, I'd be looking far more to provide women with contraceptives because every time a woman gets pregnant, the costs of delivering a baby far outweigh the amount that the public sector would have to pay to get her on birth control. The delivery room itself costs over 10000 dollars and that's with vaginal birth with no C section or epidurals. The average birth these days costs around 15000 without insurance these days. 15000 dollars is enough to provide 2 women birth control for the entire length of the professional career (30 years give or take).
3. The public is paying for women to have sex This really bugs me because it's obvious that good ol' Mr. Rush does not understand anything about the way oral contraceptives work. They are not JUST for sex. It is not a pill that you take in order to be able to have free sex with anyone that you want - for this we already have condoms which are cheaper than birth control. Birth control serves a lot of good functions other than preventing a woman from accidentally having kids. Birth control promotes healthy hormone levels in women who are otherwise hormonally impaired (producing too much or too little). It also helps a woman to regulate her period, and in addition makes the pain during menstruation much more bearable. So no we're not simply paying for women to have sex. We are paying for women's overall reproductive health, so that they don't come in with massive ovarian cysts which we then have to pay for to have removed. Also notice how the government doesn't subsidize condoms - just saying.
Best post in the whole thread, and it gets ignored because people prefer to argue over issues rather than solve them.
Contraceptive is expensive? yes .. because your insurance companies make it expensive, just like most american healthcare products. If your health system wasn't run for profit, then this wouldn't even be an issue.
There are many reasons for woman to take contraception, even if they are not sexually active. Zerksys there ^^ writes it better than I could, but I suggest everyone saying "it's just so woman can screw around" how about go ask your wives or girlfriends, sisters, mums any female.. and actually get a real answer.
The american health system is rotten to core, and every time someone tries to be change something about it, for better or worse, it causes a huge issue.
Edit to say, the pills are cheap, so why can't getting the prescription off the doctor for something that everyone should be allowed access to be cheaper.
Lots of things aren't cheap. Why should we make them free? Most healthcare plans have a deductible on nearly every prescription, what makes birth control so special that it (over basically every other prescription) deserves this special mandate that there should be no copays?
On March 04 2012 07:44 Zerksys wrote: There are a lot of people who are saying things that are not true about birth control and this act that are not true. Let me dispell them now.
1. Birth control is cheap While you are right in saying that the actual pill itself is relatively inexpensive, a quick google search will tell you that birth control is not over the counter. This means that it requires a doctor's prescription in order for you to purchase it. If this bill were to have passed, women would have to find an alternative way to pay for the doctor's prescription other than their health insurance. This is where the money comes from - the prescription, not the pill.
2. The public (taxpayers) would be paying too much for this. Have you ever taken a look at the associated costs of providing women with contraceptives vs. providing women with prenatal care and delivery? As a taxpayer in this public health system, I'd be looking far more to provide women with contraceptives because every time a woman gets pregnant, the costs of delivering a baby far outweigh the amount that the public sector would have to pay to get her on birth control. The delivery room itself costs over 10000 dollars and that's with vaginal birth with no C section or epidurals. The average birth these days costs around 15000 without insurance these days. 15000 dollars is enough to provide 2 women birth control for the entire length of the professional career (30 years give or take).
3. The public is paying for women to have sex This really bugs me because it's obvious that good ol' Mr. Rush does not understand anything about the way oral contraceptives work. They are not JUST for sex. It is not a pill that you take in order to be able to have free sex with anyone that you want - for this we already have condoms which are cheaper than birth control. Birth control serves a lot of good functions other than preventing a woman from accidentally having kids. Birth control promotes healthy hormone levels in women who are otherwise hormonally impaired (producing too much or too little). It also helps a woman to regulate her period, and in addition makes the pain during menstruation much more bearable. So no we're not simply paying for women to have sex. We are paying for women's overall reproductive health, so that they don't come in with massive ovarian cysts which we then have to pay for to have removed. Also notice how the government doesn't subsidize condoms - just saying.
Best post in the whole thread, and it gets ignored because people prefer to argue over issues rather than solve them.
Contraceptive is expensive? yes .. because your insurance companies make it expensive, just like most american healthcare products. If your health system wasn't run for profit, then this wouldn't even be an issue.
There are many reasons for woman to take contraception, even if they are not sexually active. Zerksys there ^^ writes it better than I could, but I suggest everyone saying "it's just so woman can screw around" how about go ask your wives or girlfriends, sisters, mums any female.. and actually get a real answer.
The american health system is rotten to core, and every time someone tries to be change something about it, for better or worse, it causes a huge issue.
Edit to say, the pills are cheap, so why can't getting the prescription off the doctor for something that everyone should be allowed access to be cheaper.
Lots of things aren't cheap. Why should we make them free? Most healthcare plans have a deductible on nearly every prescription, what makes birth control so special that it (over basically every other prescription) deserves this special mandate that there should be no copays?
Ok for the last time, the insurance companies would LOVE to offer the birth control for free. The opposition to this are a bunch of priests and near death males in the republican party. This is not a case of the insurance companies even being pissed off, this is purely motivated by religous "morality".
On March 05 2012 00:30 Seraphone wrote: Why do shock artists like this guy who say nothing but outlandishly controversial things that even they don't believe have such a massive audience in the US?
Because deep down, people like to be offended. It gives them the opportunity to be self-righteous.
This is my favorite post in this whole thread. Thank you very much for stating the obvious.
On March 04 2012 10:36 kevinthemighty wrote: Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it.
Listen sweetheart, it's a very simple challenge, one which that user you're defending was completely unable to answer: explain how it is unconstitutional. If you can't then there's no argument. The reason that I believe it's constitutional is because it has been introduced and upheld by people who actually have an understanding of law.
On March 05 2012 14:16 Sniperdadx wrote: Why is this even a big deal? There are much bigger issues than contraception.
Congratulations on being the hundredth person to come in this thread and say that. If you actually read it, or anything, you would understand. The Blunt-Rubio amendment would have allowed any employer to deny health coverage for any reason, and it only very narrowly failed. Do we need to explain to you why that's kind of a big deal?
On March 04 2012 10:36 kevinthemighty wrote: Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it.
Listen sweetheart, it's a very simple challenge, one which that user you're defending was completely unable to answer: explain how it is unconstitutional. If you can't then there's no argument. The reason that I believe it's constitutional is because it has been introduced and upheld by people who actually have an understanding of law.
I doubt it. Because there's other provisions which grant the government the authority to do damn near ANYTHING according to a liberally prescribed definition of terms. The constitution is fundamentally flawed, it's terms are too vague, and so it restricts nearly nothing. But you can't blame people for trying to maintain a system of dual federalism instead of embracing pure statism.
In any case, none of the health care mandates are constitutional until they are ruled constitutional by the supreme court, and from what I understand they are going to cover the case in the near future. It will certainly be a very interesting thing to follow, although I don't hold out much hope for common sense.
On March 04 2012 07:44 Zerksys wrote: There are a lot of people who are saying things that are not true about birth control and this act that are not true. Let me dispell them now.
1. Birth control is cheap While you are right in saying that the actual pill itself is relatively inexpensive, a quick google search will tell you that birth control is not over the counter. This means that it requires a doctor's prescription in order for you to purchase it. If this bill were to have passed, women would have to find an alternative way to pay for the doctor's prescription other than their health insurance. This is where the money comes from - the prescription, not the pill.
2. The public (taxpayers) would be paying too much for this. Have you ever taken a look at the associated costs of providing women with contraceptives vs. providing women with prenatal care and delivery? As a taxpayer in this public health system, I'd be looking far more to provide women with contraceptives because every time a woman gets pregnant, the costs of delivering a baby far outweigh the amount that the public sector would have to pay to get her on birth control. The delivery room itself costs over 10000 dollars and that's with vaginal birth with no C section or epidurals. The average birth these days costs around 15000 without insurance these days. 15000 dollars is enough to provide 2 women birth control for the entire length of the professional career (30 years give or take).
3. The public is paying for women to have sex This really bugs me because it's obvious that good ol' Mr. Rush does not understand anything about the way oral contraceptives work. They are not JUST for sex. It is not a pill that you take in order to be able to have free sex with anyone that you want - for this we already have condoms which are cheaper than birth control. Birth control serves a lot of good functions other than preventing a woman from accidentally having kids. Birth control promotes healthy hormone levels in women who are otherwise hormonally impaired (producing too much or too little). It also helps a woman to regulate her period, and in addition makes the pain during menstruation much more bearable. So no we're not simply paying for women to have sex. We are paying for women's overall reproductive health, so that they don't come in with massive ovarian cysts which we then have to pay for to have removed. Also notice how the government doesn't subsidize condoms - just saying.
Best post in the whole thread, and it gets ignored because people prefer to argue over issues rather than solve them.
Contraceptive is expensive? yes .. because your insurance companies make it expensive, just like most american healthcare products. If your health system wasn't run for profit, then this wouldn't even be an issue.
There are many reasons for woman to take contraception, even if they are not sexually active. Zerksys there ^^ writes it better than I could, but I suggest everyone saying "it's just so woman can screw around" how about go ask your wives or girlfriends, sisters, mums any female.. and actually get a real answer.
The american health system is rotten to core, and every time someone tries to be change something about it, for better or worse, it causes a huge issue.
Edit to say, the pills are cheap, so why can't getting the prescription off the doctor for something that everyone should be allowed access to be cheaper.
Lots of things aren't cheap. Why should we make them free? Most healthcare plans have a deductible on nearly every prescription, what makes birth control so special that it (over basically every other prescription) deserves this special mandate that there should be no copays?
What other medication does half the population take monthly? Why should you make them free?... because. Why does everyone have to be so selfish. Half the population benefit (health wise) for something that has negligible cost. Hire some new nurses (jobs.. helps economy) let them dish out the pills... saves money on doctors, woman can have contraception.. problem solved.
Nothing wrong with abortion, it is a personal decision and ultimately up to the potential mother to make that choice, who are we to argue what God wanted?
A poor young adult female gets raped and she shouldn't have the right to abortion? You simply cannot place laws to prevent abortion, it is unethical and against religion.
On March 05 2012 17:23 meatbox wrote: Nothing wrong with abortion, it is a personal decision and ultimately up to the potential mother to make that choice, who are we to argue what God wanted?
A poor young adult female gets raped and she shouldn't have the right to abortion? You simply cannot place laws to prevent abortion, it is unethical and against religion.
I disagree. Yes a woman should have the right to choose, but you have to be a pretty flawed human being to not be affected by that decision - either way. So there is no perfect solution here, is what I am trying to say.
On March 05 2012 17:42 zalz wrote: Nobody is saying that we should be throwing abortion parties. Of ourse it isn't a fun thing, nobody thinks that.
Even the notion that there are women who use abortion as the contraception of choice is ridiculous.
But even more abhorent is the idea of forcing women to have a child that they don't want. What are you going to do? Tie them up like cattle?
Abortion is essential for women to be able to control their own bodies and their own lives.
Don´t want to spoil your party, but wasn´t that exactly what I wrote? Also, not mentioning that abortion is far from an easy procedure, just plays into the hands of overzealous religious people calling such women "immoral whores" or whatever is in their book of doom they like to misinterpret.
On March 05 2012 17:23 meatbox wrote: Nothing wrong with abortion, it is a personal decision and ultimately up to the potential mother to make that choice, who are we to argue what God wanted?
A poor young adult female gets raped and she shouldn't have the right to abortion? You simply cannot place laws to prevent abortion, it is unethical and against religion.
I disagree. Yes a woman should have the right to choose, but you have to be a pretty flawed human being to not be affected by that decision - either way. So there is no perfect solution here, is what I am trying to say.
There is a perfectly simple solution. Make contraception readily available, and allow abortions if a woman chooses.
To the anti-abortion people in this thread: The fetus in early stages does not have a brain, and does not have a nervous system. Therefore, the fetus is not a conscious being, nor can it experience pain. As a result, the freedom for a woman to choose what happens in her body is of higher priority, since a woman is a conscious being, unlike the fetus.
On March 05 2012 17:42 zalz wrote: Nobody is saying that we should be throwing abortion parties. Of ourse it isn't a fun thing, nobody thinks that.
Even the notion that there are women who use abortion as the contraception of choice is ridiculous.
But even more abhorent is the idea of forcing women to have a child that they don't want. What are you going to do? Tie them up like cattle?
Abortion is essential for women to be able to control their own bodies and their own lives.
Don´t want to spoil your party, but wasn´t that exactly what I wrote? Also, not mentioning that abortion is far from an easy procedure, just plays into the hands of overzealous religious people calling such women "immoral whores" or whatever is in their book of doom they like to misinterpret.
One thing that I think is important is that refusing a woman who wants to have an abortion from having an abortion is pretty bad for everyone involved. Because, the woman doesn't want a child, the man most likely doesn't want the child, and so if the kid is born there will be resent for them from the very start. Can't be healthy for him or her.
To the anti-abortion people in this thread: The fetus in early stages does not have a brain, and does not have a nervous system. Therefore, the fetus is not a conscious being, nor can it experience pain. As a result, the freedom for a woman to choose what happens in her body is of higher priority, since a woman is a conscious being, unlike the fetus.
I really like this. What a great way to put it. I usually bring up the same point when someone compares cutting down a tree to murdering an animal or human being. They are different, and cannot be compared the same way.
The kid isn't even really 'alive' yet (I don't use that term literally), and still people are putting them above the people who are already established in the society. Seems it should be the other way round.
On March 05 2012 17:42 zalz wrote: Nobody is saying that we should be throwing abortion parties. Of ourse it isn't a fun thing, nobody thinks that.
Even the notion that there are women who use abortion as the contraception of choice is ridiculous.
But even more abhorent is the idea of forcing women to have a child that they don't want. What are you going to do? Tie them up like cattle?
Abortion is essential for women to be able to control their own bodies and their own lives.
Don´t want to spoil your party, but wasn´t that exactly what I wrote? Also, not mentioning that abortion is far from an easy procedure, just plays into the hands of overzealous religious people calling such women "immoral whores" or whatever is in their book of doom they like to misinterpret.
I feel like we are talking past one another.
You are not the only one.
Again to clarifiy: YES - Women should have the right to choose whether to abort or not, it is their body - control their own life etc.etc, NO - it is not a simple procedure(meaning how it can affect the psyche, after all it is potential life you deny for whatever reason.) Maybe the second point stems from my catholic inspired education, but I think it´s agreeable nonetheless. And this is just a sidepoint of the contraception debate... It just really irked me when I read the sentence "there is nothing wrong with abortion". To prevent this problem in the first place, I am for prescription of the pill for women, if they wish for it. I hope I made myself clear now.
On March 05 2012 17:23 meatbox wrote: Nothing wrong with abortion, it is a personal decision and ultimately up to the potential mother to make that choice, who are we to argue what God wanted?
A poor young adult female gets raped and she shouldn't have the right to abortion? You simply cannot place laws to prevent abortion, it is unethical and against religion.
I disagree. Yes a woman should have the right to choose, but you have to be a pretty flawed human being to not be affected by that decision - either way. So there is no perfect solution here, is what I am trying to say.
There is a perfectly simple solution. Make contraception readily available, and allow abortions if a woman chooses.
To the anti-abortion people in this thread: The fetus in early stages does not have a brain, and does not have a nervous system. Therefore, the fetus is not a conscious being, nor can it experience pain. As a result, the freedom for a woman to choose what happens in her body is of higher priority, since a woman is a conscious being, unlike the fetus.
As true as your post is, you won´t be able to convince practicing fundamentalist Christians with your point. Their church says otherwise --> your argument is invalid. Sad, but true as well.
On March 05 2012 17:42 zalz wrote: Nobody is saying that we should be throwing abortion parties. Of ourse it isn't a fun thing, nobody thinks that.
Even the notion that there are women who use abortion as the contraception of choice is ridiculous.
But even more abhorent is the idea of forcing women to have a child that they don't want. What are you going to do? Tie them up like cattle?
Abortion is essential for women to be able to control their own bodies and their own lives.
Don´t want to spoil your party, but wasn´t that exactly what I wrote? Also, not mentioning that abortion is far from an easy procedure, just plays into the hands of overzealous religious people calling such women "immoral whores" or whatever is in their book of doom they like to misinterpret.
I feel like we are talking past one another.
You are not the only one.
Again to clarifiy: YES - Women should have the right to choose whether to abort or not, it is their body - control their own life etc.etc, NO - it is not a simple procedure(meaning how it can affect the psyche, after all it is potential life you deny for whatever reason.) Maybe the second point stems from my catholic inspired education, but I think it´s agreeable nonetheless. And this is just a sidepoint of the contraception debate... It just really irked me when I read the sentence "there is nothing wrong with abortion". To prevent this problem in the first place, I am for prescription of the pill for women, if they wish for it. I hope I made myself clear now.
On March 04 2012 07:44 Zerksys wrote: There are a lot of people who are saying things that are not true about birth control and this act that are not true. Let me dispell them now.
1. Birth control is cheap While you are right in saying that the actual pill itself is relatively inexpensive, a quick google search will tell you that birth control is not over the counter. This means that it requires a doctor's prescription in order for you to purchase it. If this bill were to have passed, women would have to find an alternative way to pay for the doctor's prescription other than their health insurance. This is where the money comes from - the prescription, not the pill.
2. The public (taxpayers) would be paying too much for this. Have you ever taken a look at the associated costs of providing women with contraceptives vs. providing women with prenatal care and delivery? As a taxpayer in this public health system, I'd be looking far more to provide women with contraceptives because every time a woman gets pregnant, the costs of delivering a baby far outweigh the amount that the public sector would have to pay to get her on birth control. The delivery room itself costs over 10000 dollars and that's with vaginal birth with no C section or epidurals. The average birth these days costs around 15000 without insurance these days. 15000 dollars is enough to provide 2 women birth control for the entire length of the professional career (30 years give or take).
3. The public is paying for women to have sex This really bugs me because it's obvious that good ol' Mr. Rush does not understand anything about the way oral contraceptives work. They are not JUST for sex. It is not a pill that you take in order to be able to have free sex with anyone that you want - for this we already have condoms which are cheaper than birth control. Birth control serves a lot of good functions other than preventing a woman from accidentally having kids. Birth control promotes healthy hormone levels in women who are otherwise hormonally impaired (producing too much or too little). It also helps a woman to regulate her period, and in addition makes the pain during menstruation much more bearable. So no we're not simply paying for women to have sex. We are paying for women's overall reproductive health, so that they don't come in with massive ovarian cysts which we then have to pay for to have removed. Also notice how the government doesn't subsidize condoms - just saying.
Best post in the whole thread, and it gets ignored because people prefer to argue over issues rather than solve them.
Contraceptive is expensive? yes .. because your insurance companies make it expensive, just like most american healthcare products. If your health system wasn't run for profit, then this wouldn't even be an issue.
There are many reasons for woman to take contraception, even if they are not sexually active. Zerksys there ^^ writes it better than I could, but I suggest everyone saying "it's just so woman can screw around" how about go ask your wives or girlfriends, sisters, mums any female.. and actually get a real answer.
The american health system is rotten to core, and every time someone tries to be change something about it, for better or worse, it causes a huge issue.
Edit to say, the pills are cheap, so why can't getting the prescription off the doctor for something that everyone should be allowed access to be cheaper.
Lots of things aren't cheap. Why should we make them free? Most healthcare plans have a deductible on nearly every prescription, what makes birth control so special that it (over basically every other prescription) deserves this special mandate that there should be no copays?
What other medication does half the population take monthly? Why should you make them free?... because. Why does everyone have to be so selfish. Half the population benefit (health wise) for something that has negligible cost. Hire some new nurses (jobs.. helps economy) let them dish out the pills... saves money on doctors, woman can have contraception.. problem solved.
So...car insurance should pay for gasoline? Homeowners insurance should pay for heating bills?
On March 04 2012 07:44 Zerksys wrote: There are a lot of people who are saying things that are not true about birth control and this act that are not true. Let me dispell them now.
1. Birth control is cheap While you are right in saying that the actual pill itself is relatively inexpensive, a quick google search will tell you that birth control is not over the counter. This means that it requires a doctor's prescription in order for you to purchase it. If this bill were to have passed, women would have to find an alternative way to pay for the doctor's prescription other than their health insurance. This is where the money comes from - the prescription, not the pill.
2. The public (taxpayers) would be paying too much for this. Have you ever taken a look at the associated costs of providing women with contraceptives vs. providing women with prenatal care and delivery? As a taxpayer in this public health system, I'd be looking far more to provide women with contraceptives because every time a woman gets pregnant, the costs of delivering a baby far outweigh the amount that the public sector would have to pay to get her on birth control. The delivery room itself costs over 10000 dollars and that's with vaginal birth with no C section or epidurals. The average birth these days costs around 15000 without insurance these days. 15000 dollars is enough to provide 2 women birth control for the entire length of the professional career (30 years give or take).
3. The public is paying for women to have sex This really bugs me because it's obvious that good ol' Mr. Rush does not understand anything about the way oral contraceptives work. They are not JUST for sex. It is not a pill that you take in order to be able to have free sex with anyone that you want - for this we already have condoms which are cheaper than birth control. Birth control serves a lot of good functions other than preventing a woman from accidentally having kids. Birth control promotes healthy hormone levels in women who are otherwise hormonally impaired (producing too much or too little). It also helps a woman to regulate her period, and in addition makes the pain during menstruation much more bearable. So no we're not simply paying for women to have sex. We are paying for women's overall reproductive health, so that they don't come in with massive ovarian cysts which we then have to pay for to have removed. Also notice how the government doesn't subsidize condoms - just saying.
Best post in the whole thread, and it gets ignored because people prefer to argue over issues rather than solve them.
Contraceptive is expensive? yes .. because your insurance companies make it expensive, just like most american healthcare products. If your health system wasn't run for profit, then this wouldn't even be an issue.
There are many reasons for woman to take contraception, even if they are not sexually active. Zerksys there ^^ writes it better than I could, but I suggest everyone saying "it's just so woman can screw around" how about go ask your wives or girlfriends, sisters, mums any female.. and actually get a real answer.
The american health system is rotten to core, and every time someone tries to be change something about it, for better or worse, it causes a huge issue.
Edit to say, the pills are cheap, so why can't getting the prescription off the doctor for something that everyone should be allowed access to be cheaper.
Lots of things aren't cheap. Why should we make them free? Most healthcare plans have a deductible on nearly every prescription, what makes birth control so special that it (over basically every other prescription) deserves this special mandate that there should be no copays?
Ok for the last time, the insurance companies would LOVE to offer the birth control for free. The opposition to this are a bunch of priests and near death males in the republican party. This is not a case of the insurance companies even being pissed off, this is purely motivated by religous "morality".
No, they wouldn't. Some would and some already do. An insurance company responds to the people purchasing the insurance (usually large companies). Does Coke have a moral opposition to contraception? No. Does their health insurance cover it without co-pays? Unlikely. Why? Because mandated free contraception is not a "good business decision" it is a purely political one and a straight wealth-redistribution program (from non-users to users). Lots of people compare this to things like Viagra, but Viagra doesn't have a mandated $0 co-pay, so your analogy falls through at even the lowest levels.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/Feministing%20NEW%20ALBUM/bc_costs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vfR6x.jpg)
