EPTThe Contraception Coverage Debate in the U.S. - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
| ||
|
Kaonis
United States243 Posts
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. | ||
|
acie
United States247 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
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. But complaining about them is good and justified. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:22 Kaonis wrote: 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. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
|
ODKStevez
Ireland1225 Posts
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. | ||
|
Quelex
United States3 Posts
- 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. | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
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. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
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. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:54 overt wrote: 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. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:17 OsoVega wrote: 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? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
more likely libertarian. i agree. government should have limited involvement in our lives like it was always intended. | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:58 OsoVega wrote: 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. | ||
|
Quelex
United States3 Posts
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? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:16 Quelex wrote: 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. | ||
|
furerkip
United States439 Posts
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? | ||
Falling
Canada11439 Posts
Basically there's two lines of debate. 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. | ||
|
aminoashley
105 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:25 furerkip wrote: 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. | ||
|
ReturnStroke
United States801 Posts
| ||
| ||
