User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 3:13:49 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
...snip... 3) Use of birth control does not appreciably lower birth rates. Nor does abortion, for that matter. No matter where you go in the world, short of places like China where the government just kills your kid and puts you in jail if you're noncompliant, people have as many kids as they want. A lot of things go into that "want," but there it is. ...snip... Confused - doesn't BC aid people in having as many (few) kids as they want? 2.4 children per hispanic white woman, 1.8 per non-hispanic white woman. You are saying BC is not involved in that? Too much tv and internet, not enough fucking for non-Hispanic white women? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 3:16:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Lot's of herp/derp and pseudo intellectual crapola, along with impossible, impractical "pure ideology".
While philosophically, I'm against the gov't "providing" shit "free" to people who should be paying for it themselves, the cold, hard truth is, we're gonna be paying for their crotch fruit one way or the other. Education, school lunches, WIC, AFDC, section 8, EITC, after school programs, day care, health care, graffitti removal, juvie, prison, death row. Not to mention, the insurance deductible you pay when one of these pieces of shit steals your car, or your breaks into your home or place of business. Get it straight- it's infinitely cheaper to prevent these pieces of walking garbage, than to pay for all this shit later. Do I like it? Hell no, but your pure ideology will only make you temporarily feel better, which is what liberals do. You can do all the mental gymnastics you want, but you're doing them in the wrong order. Use your pure ideology to get rid of the welfare first, and then eventually, the birth control and abortions will be less necessary later. Oh, and the idea that women will just "close their legs" is beyond stupid. Ain't gonna happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 3:18:50 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
You're going to pay for it one way or another. Either pay for BC or the cost of the kid. Because when they take the tax deduction for the kid it lowers their taxes which means someone else, you for instance, need to pay more. Plus the cost of schools. any welfare the mom recieves, earned income tax credit, etc. Alienating half the electorate on this issue is not a winning solution. If you don't give people food they will just dry up and die, or steal or something. Everyone is entitled to food. Everyone needs a roof over their heads. Minimum shelter is a god given right. You can't go to school without a laptop. Everyone should be given one in school. You can't get a job without a car or phone. Just a basic plan. Nothing excessive. You can't expect people to pay back student loans when the economy js this bad. If the loans were forgiven it would put people back to work. After all, it's about the jobs. 401k and 403b plans unfairly benefit the rich. If they were eliminated then the money could be put into a retirement plan for the working man. What were we talking about. . . ? Oh yeah, birth control. The republicans should not be against it and they would win. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 3:20:49 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Especially when the most effective means of birth control is the woman keeping her legs closed. That doesn't cost anyone anything. How about the guy keeping it in his pants? Or are you a hypocrite? And god forbid someone actually enjoying sex with out being a dirty whore
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 3:24:02 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok so one of the major problems with America is the amount of entitlements that are given and entitlement abuse. This is a stance that most of us on this site agree upon. Right? My question with the GOP platform towards issues regarding birth control is don't we want these people using birth control and not bringing more children into this world that will be born, bred, and raised to work the government handout system? Why does the GOP want to fight against its goals of eliminating the dependence in regard to this issue? It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm hoping someone can form a logical explanation so that I can understand. Yes, we do want them using some form of contraception so they aren't having more kids than they can ever hope to take care of. However, what we don't want, is the tax payers paying for their contraception. It's a matter of personal responsibility. Have all the sex you want, just use condoms or birth control so you don't end up with the tax payers raising your kids because you lack self control. the poor can already get free birth control at various health services. But why should they when they get paid to give birth. Bet more of it would get used if that were stopped. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 3:25:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Especially when the most effective means of birth control is the woman keeping her legs closed. That doesn't cost anyone anything. How about the guy keeping it in his pants? Or are you a hypocrite? And god forbid someone actually enjoying sex with out being a dirty whore Can't have people enjoying sex, GDP would go to shit... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 3:28:19 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Ok so one of the major problems with America is the amount of entitlements that are given and entitlement abuse. This is a stance that most of us on this site agree upon. Right? My question with the GOP platform towards issues regarding birth control is don't we want these people using birth control and not bringing more children into this world that will be born, bred, and raised to work the government handout system? Why does the GOP want to fight against its goals of eliminating the dependence in regard to this issue? It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm hoping someone can form a logical explanation so that I can understand. Um, where in the hell did you hear republicans are againt birth control ? Practicing Catholics are because of their faith.............Republicans could give a rip about it............if you consider abortion as birth control , well thats another story |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 3:30:22 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
2) There's no problem with reproduction, and we do not have a population or a population growth problem. And that's the problem. Not birth control, not population growth, not entitlements, not any of that. . Do you have any idea what you are talking about? 7 billion people on this planet. Do you know where your food comes from? We are using chemicals and bioengineered products like crazy to keep people fed. According to the WHO, 25% of people on this planet die of malnutrition and/or lack of water. Even with birth rates going down we are on track to hit 12 billion by 2050. Thats 60% more people! Population is the major problem on this planet! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 3:41:34 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok so one of the major problems with America is the amount of entitlements that are given and entitlement abuse. This is a stance that most of us on this site agree upon. Right? My question with the GOP platform towards issues regarding birth control is don't we want these people using birth control and not bringing more children into this world that will be born, bred, and raised to work the government handout system? Why does the GOP want to fight against its goals of eliminating the dependence in regard to this issue? It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm hoping someone can form a logical explanation so that I can understand. Um, where in the hell did you hear republicans are againt birth control ? Practicing Catholics are because of their faith.............Republicans could give a rip about it............if you consider abortion as birth control , well thats another story Ironically, the catholics still love obama. So what should the republicans do to attract them. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 3:45:26 PM EDT
[#10]
I suspect that providing BC pills iwithout a co-pay if treated as a business decision lowers premiums for everybody. Spreading the cost of a gender specific benefit
(such as child birth) across both sexes is business as usual. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 3:47:24 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
2) There's no problem with reproduction, and we do not have a population or a population growth problem. And that's the problem. Not birth control, not population growth, not entitlements, not any of that. . Do you have any idea what you are talking about? 7 billion people on this planet. Do you know where your food comes from? We are using chemicals and bioengineered products like crazy to keep people fed. According to the WHO, 25% of people on this planet die of malnutrition and/or lack of water. Even with birth rates going down we are on track to hit 12 billion by 2050. Thats 60% more people! Population is the major problem on this planet! Necessity is the mother of invention. Keep breeding necessity I say. Why you hate invention? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 3:50:56 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Ok so one of the major problems with America is the amount of entitlements that are given and entitlement abuse. This is a stance that most of us on this site agree upon. Right? My question with the GOP platform towards issues regarding birth control is don't we want these people using birth control and not bringing more children into this world that will be born, bred, and raised to work the government handout system? Why does the GOP want to fight against its goals of eliminating the dependence in regard to this issue? It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm hoping someone can form a logical explanation so that I can understand. Who are the "these people" you're referring to? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 3:57:56 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
I suspect that providing BC pills iwithout a co-pay if treated as a business decision lowers premiums for everybody. Spreading the cost of a gender specific benefit (such as child birth) across both sexes is business as usual. Assuming the above is true, what possible objection could a person have to providing BC pills without a co-pay. It seems any objection would have to be moral in nature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 5:36:48 PM EDT
[#14]
The cost of one unplanned pregnancy carried to term would pay for a lot of BC pills.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 5:50:21 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Many push it as a religious issue. I am a Christian and am a big proponent of birth control for the reasons you mentioned. Not abortions as BC, but actual preventive BC. Pill, shot, patch, whatever. One of my cousins is a firm believer that BC = killing babies. So, they have 5 children they can't afford and live off of others so she can stay at home with the kids. Then to put the hypocrisy cherry on top her husband just got a vasectomy because they realized 6 may be too many. One of the many enlightenments I've had in the past few years to make me realize that I am not a GOP-er either.  What you may not realize is that the pill and most other forms of birth control actually causes the womb to be hostile to a fetus. I doesn't prevent fertilization, it prevents the baby from developing after fertilization, harming a viable life. A vasectomy prevents fertilization, hence no life is harmed. Your cousin may or may not know this, but it was a factor for my wife and I when deciding if she should go on the pill or get her tubes cut after her last miscarriage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 6:13:53 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
You know, I've had a hysterectomy and I still don't mind having slightly higher premiums so you guys can bang your girl friends free from worry about unwanted pregnancy. I figure a world full of fucked out men is a whole lot more pleasant place to be.
Quoted:
I would like to make a comment. I've seen it stated many times that birth control provided by a insurer without a co-pay=free birth control. That's nonsense. The birth control is still being paid for by the insurance premiums. It's not free. I pay 100% insurance premiums. Forcing an insurance company to provide a service will result in more money I have to pay them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 7:21:35 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I suspect that providing BC pills iwithout a co-pay if treated as a business decision lowers premiums for everybody. Spreading the cost of a gender specific benefit (such as child birth) across both sexes is business as usual. Assuming the above is true, what possible objection could a person have to providing BC pills without a co-pay. It seems any objection would have to be moral in nature. Doesn't anyone want to comment?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 7:24:28 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mandatory birth control should be a condition of welfare/food stamps. YES! IIRC, Red China, US's most favored trading partner and capitalism idol, does that now. Not so far off coming here apparently. If you can't afford to feed them, don't breed them. Conversely, if you expect *ME* to feed you and them, expect a Norplant. Don't like it? Get off of the dole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 7:25:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Wow OP I never thought of it that way before.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 7:26:51 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Ok so one of the major problems with America is the amount of entitlements that are given and entitlement abuse. This is a stance that most of us on this site agree upon. Right? My question with the GOP platform towards issues regarding birth control is don't we want these people using birth control and not bringing more children into this world that will be born, bred, and raised to work the government handout system? Why does the GOP want to fight against its goals of eliminating the dependence in regard to this issue? It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm hoping someone can form a logical explanation so that I can understand. You are ignoring the flip side of the equation. Demographic decline is a real problem. The entitlement society can't work if there are fewer children paying for old people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 8:54:17 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
2) There's no problem with reproduction, and we do not have a population or a population growth problem. And that's the problem. Not birth control, not population growth, not entitlements, not any of that. . Do you have any idea what you are talking about? 7 billion people on this planet. Do you know where your food comes from? We are using chemicals and bioengineered products like crazy to keep people fed. According to the WHO, 25% of people on this planet die of malnutrition and/or lack of water. Even with birth rates going down we are on track to hit 12 billion by 2050. Thats 60% more people! Population is the major problem on this planet! This isn't a worldwide policy. This discussion has only to do with the United States of America. And, in the USA, our "poor" people are fat. Though, if we were talking about the whole world? The US has the manufacturing and distribution capabilities to feed the entire world thirty times over. Do you have any idea how much arable land in this country is completely unused? How many government subsidies are given out to purposefully incentivize farmers NOT to grow things? Moreover, we export an astonishing amount of food and food aid. Do you know who feeds North Korea? Yeah, we do. People starve because, for one reason or another, our food is not permitted to get to them. It could be a warlord, or dictator, or drug cartel, or... So, you want to talk about world hunger, it's eventually going to lead to us also being the world's police force, which is FAR more expensive than just the minimal cost to produce the food. So, next question... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 9:05:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Ok so one of the major problems with America is the amount of entitlements that are given and entitlement abuse. This is a stance that most of us on this site agree upon. Right? My question with the GOP platform towards issues regarding birth control is don't we want these people using birth control and not bringing more children into this world that will be born, bred, and raised to work the government handout system? Why does the GOP want to fight against its goals of eliminating the dependence in regard to this issue? It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm hoping someone can form a logical explanation so that I can understand. I am not aware of any platform position of the GOP that is against birth control. Perhaps you are confused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 9:14:36 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
...snip... 3) Use of birth control does not appreciably lower birth rates. Nor does abortion, for that matter. No matter where you go in the world, short of places like China where the government just kills your kid and puts you in jail if you're noncompliant, people have as many kids as they want. A lot of things go into that "want," but there it is. ...snip... Confused - doesn't BC aid people in having as many (few) kids as they want? 2.4 children per hispanic white woman, 1.8 per non-hispanic white woman. You are saying BC is not involved in that? Too much tv and internet, not enough fucking for non-Hispanic white women? Nope, not involved. Couple things here. First, natural birth control such as the various forms of NFP, despite what you've heard, work quite well for the vast majority of people. Hormonal birth control is only 99.9% effective, but a good NFP program is actually better than that (caveat: not true for all couples, though you CAN still predict your own individual risk). But, more importantly, they're not unknown to people. Even techniques with relatively low success rates (e.g. pulling out) have recorded evidence of widespread dissemination as early as 2,000+ BC. It's a myth that people just don't know how to not get pregnant. The truth is that hormones are powerful, and people have a drive to reproduce. Second, economic factors are serious things. As the cost of raising a family goes up, people have fewer kids. This is a far stronger indicator than the availability or cost of birth control. Remember, we're not talking about polls being unavailable, we're talking about what they cost and who pays for them. Imagine you're a 29 year old law student with a rich, frisky boyfriend. Pills cost $3 a month if you pay for them, or you can try to get someone else to. So, if they say no, are you going to spend the $3 yourself, or just get pregnant in protest? That's what I thought... Lastly, cultural issues are worth mentioning. Immigrant families have always valued large family sizes when they came to the US. Why? Because they didn't have silly socialist safety nets where they came from. If you wanted to eat when you were too old to feed yourself, you needed kids. There's no social security! You can't just have the government make other people's kids take care of you. That's what YOUR kids were for. And so that gets built up into different cultural values. But how about this nugget: BC is equally available to both whites and Hispanics in this country. Yet, the birth rates differ. So, it can't possibly bethe availability of pills, right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 9:18:21 PM EDT
[#24]
It's not about people USING birth control... its about us PAYING for it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 9:22:03 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: I don't care if promiscuous people want birth control (at least they are doing something somewhat responsible in that...) But no fucking way should you expect me to pay for it... If I gotta foot the bill for some chicks BC pills - I had better be tapping that ass! This. If you want BC, you want abortions...no problem.... YOU pay for it YOURSELF. It's about YOU doing the right thing. NOT having others pay for it. Personal responsibility. It's about YOU taking care of your own business for the good of the society, NOT society taking care of YOUR business for you. BC is dirt cheap, abortions (considering the cost of other medical procedures) are cheap. Claiming you don't have the money to pay for it is BULLSHIT! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 9:47:06 PM EDT
[#26]
So you don't want insurance providers to cover the cost of BC pills the way they do other prescription drugs?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2012 9:49:32 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
So you don't want insurance providers to cover the cost of BC pills the way they do other prescription drugs? Co-pay be damned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 6:50:04 AM EDT
[#28]
I'd rather pay for other people's birth control pills than welfare for life for their children, the cost of the BC is a drop in the bucket compared to the other. Insurance covers hard on pills for old men, why not cover birth control?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 6:56:24 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: So you don't want insurance providers to cover the cost of BC pills the way they do other prescription drugs? So, you you believe that people opposed to birth control should be required by law to pay for the birth control of other people? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 6:58:30 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Mandatory birth control should be a condition of welfare/food stamps. No. The correct reaction to violating the constitution is to stop violating the constitution, not violate the constitution even furhter. A condition of food stamps and welfare should be that they do not exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 7:06:17 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
I'd rather pay for other people's birth control pills than welfare for life for their children, the cost of the BC is a drop in the bucket compared to the other. Insurance covers hard on pills for old men, why not cover birth control? Hey, they are already doing bad idea #1, what's the problem with doing bad idea #2? Logic fail... And as to your first point - we shouldn't be paying for either... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 7:12:44 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you don't want insurance providers to cover the cost of BC pills the way they do other prescription drugs? So, you you believe that people opposed to birth control should be required by law to pay for the birth control of other people? Lame. So should jehova's witnesses not cover blood transfusions, too?
Sorry, that's the most retarded stance, ever. So, I guess libs can stop paying taxes to support a war they don't believe in now, too? Can I stop paying taxes to pay for welfare? Sign me up! If they start holding people down, and forcing BC pills down their throat, then I'll say they've crossed the line. Having something in an insurance policy isn't like sending a Catholic priest down to the pharmacy to buy some morning after pills. This is some serious Bill O'Reilly thinking right here.
Which is it- BC pills or an Abortion. You have to pay for one. which do you prefer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 7:14:32 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mandatory birth control should be a condition of welfare/food stamps. No. The correct reaction to violating the constitution is to stop violating the constitution, not violate the constitution even furhter. A condition of food stamps and welfare should be that they do not exist. But they DO EXIST, whether we like them or not. So, your childish rant isn't doing anybody any good. Waaaah, they're not following the constitution... Yeah, we know. 
So, do we want to try to cut down on the number of people who will be getting food stamps, or do we pout and cry in the corner? No wonder we fucking lost.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 7:30:29 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Mandatory birth control should be a condition of welfare/food stamps. No. The correct reaction to violating the constitution is to stop violating the constitution, not violate the constitution even furhter. A condition of food stamps and welfare should be that they do not exist. But they DO EXIST, whether we like them or not. So, your childish rant isn't doing anybody any good. Waaaah, they're not following the constitution... Yeah, we know. So, do we want to try to cut down on the number of people who will be getting food stamps, or do we pout and cry in the corner? No wonder we fucking lost. I agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 7:40:43 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Especially when the most effective means of birth control is the woman keeping her legs closed. That doesn't cost anyone anything. How about the guy keeping it in his pants? Or are you a hypocrite? And god forbid someone actually enjoying sex with out being a dirty whore You are the only one using the words or concept of "dirty whore" in this conversation.
The woman is the one ultimately responsible for what happens to HER body (unless all the pro-choice supporters are hypocrites), that's why I singled the women out. As said numerous times on this board, they control the supply. Final gatekeeper, and all that. The fact is, abstinence is the ONLY foolproof way to not get pregnant. It's also free, so ANYONE can use that form of birth control without any need for subsidies, or reaching into the taxpayer's wallets to support your recreation. (Sex is NOT a necessity, like food, water or air.) Pregnancy is a behaviorally-contracted medical condition. Don't want it? Don't engage in the behavior that puts you at risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 8:34:48 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you don't want insurance providers to cover the cost of BC pills the way they do other prescription drugs? So, you you believe that people opposed to birth control should be required by law to pay for the birth control of other people? It's done all the time and as far as I know it's not an issue. The answer is yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 8:39:11 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mandatory birth control should be a condition of welfare/food stamps. No. The correct reaction to violating the constitution is to stop violating the constitution, not violate the constitution even furhter. A condition of food stamps and welfare should be that they do not exist. But they DO EXIST, whether we like them or not. So, your childish rant isn't doing anybody any good. Waaaah, they're not following the constitution... Yeah, we know.
So, do we want to try to cut down on the number of people who will be getting food stamps, or do we pout and cry in the corner? No wonder we fucking lost. If the government stopped paying out food stamps, I think that problem would go away faster than you realize. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 8:40:04 AM EDT
[#38]
I've never heard of a medical insurance provider giving particpants the option of opting out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 8:41:03 AM EDT
[#39]
Sorry! Wrong thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 8:42:18 AM EDT
[#40]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 8:48:57 AM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 8:51:09 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
4) There is no GOP position that doesn't want people to use birth control. That's absolutely absurd. This is the correct answer. No part of the Republican platform has ever indicated that the Party wanted to restrict anyone's access to birth control. That is a stupid meta-myth created by the MSM trying to paint the GOP as a bunch of semi-retarded bible thumpers, and the OP should know better. The fact that some individuals in the Party have been caught saying stupid shit about the subject and had their faces and words plastered all over the news does not make their stupid opinions the official Party line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 8:53:25 AM EDT
[#43]
It's no coincidence that shortly after Ricky made those remarks that the whole "war on women" campaign started. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 8:55:08 AM EDT
[#44]
fo
Quoted:
I don't give a shit what you do with your goddamn Vagina or Uterus for that matter as long as you pay for it. It's not really a war on women so much as it's a war on our wallets. The problem comes when birth control and abortion becomes a matter of public policy which pretty much means public money. Don't like my opinion, attitude, or control then don't take my money. So instead of paying for birth control, we end up paying for the kids and there are more abortions. Considering the fact that one of the biggest determinants of a child growing up to be a criminal or welfare recipient is growing up in poverty and the fact that people who qualify for free BC are poor, protecting your wallet by denying public funds from something that prevents massive future public spending is absurd.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 8:55:13 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: I don't give a shit what you do with your goddamn Vagina or Uterus for that matter as long as you pay for it. It's not really a war on women so much as it's a war on our wallets. The problem comes when birth control and abortion becomes a matter of public policy which pretty much means public money. Don't like my opinion, attitude, or control then don't take my money. Who wants to provide birth control using public money? I've seen where health insurance carriers may be required to cover birth control. I've got news for everyone, most health insurance companies already do, and there is a lot of other things that they are now required to cover, some at 100% coverage like yearly health exams and colonoscopy, why aren't we all up in arms over free colonoscopy handouts to the "free shit army"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 9:06:07 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: I don't give a shit what you do with your goddamn Vagina or Uterus for that matter as long as you pay for it. It's not really a war on women so much as it's a war on our wallets. The problem comes when birth control and abortion becomes a matter of public policy which pretty much means public money. Don't like my opinion, attitude, or control then don't take my money. Who wants to provide birth control using public money? I've seen where health insurance carriers may be required to cover birth control. I've got news for everyone, most health insurance companies already do, and there is a lot of other things that they are now required to cover, some at 100% coverage like yearly health exams and colonoscopy, why aren't we all up in arms over free colonoscopy handouts to the "free shit army"? Who wants to require providing birth control with private money? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 9:07:48 AM EDT
[#47]
The GOP platform has nothing to do with birth control, unless you consider abortion birth control.
The birth control issue came up when the goverment was trying to compel an organization to provide birth control in the health insurance plans offered by the organization to its employees and that organization had religious objections to it (and long standing practice not to provide that service). Free practice of religion is a constitutionally protected right, and has always been a positive defense to avoiding government mandate. This is new territory because the courts are saying it is no longer a protected freedom, or a reason to not comply with a government mandate. That is the issue. It's a First Ammendment issue. The Catholic Church is merely being logically consistent when they oppose oral birth control. The Catholic Church believes life begins at conception. Oral birth control uses three mechanisms to prevent birth. One of those is thickening of the uterine wall to prevent embryo implantation. Implantation of a fertilized ovum. Since the Church considers a fertilized ovum alive, preventing implantaion and thus development of that ovum, and allowing it to die is tatamount to an abortion. It's straightforward logic, and consistent. The Vatican SPECIFICALLY authorizes the use of oral contraceptives for medical uses other than birth control. So that argument you hear in the news is a red herring. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 9:12:39 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
The churchies and lifies' Dogma about abortion revolves around the myth that if the women just have the kids, they'll magically grow up to be good members of society. Sadly, all this does is put children in abusive and poor conditions, creating more FSA members. Like Democrats dusting their hands when they've "banned something" and thinking it's done, most churchies and lifies rarely ever think beyond abortion. A simple answer from a simple mind. It's called adoption. The waiting lists for adoptive parents are longer than ever. Those families have been vetted with financial and criminal background criteria. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 9:21:12 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: See this is the problem, people don't even understand the issue. They don't understand that people do pay for the birth control of other people for a long time. I can't think of the last time I had health insurance that didn't cover birth control. Quoted: Quoted: So you don't want insurance providers to cover the cost of BC pills the way they do other prescription drugs? So, you you believe that people opposed to birth control should be required by law to pay for the birth control of other people? It's done all the time and as far as I know it's not an issue. The answer is yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2012 9:21:31 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't give a shit what you do with your goddamn Vagina or Uterus for that matter as long as you pay for it. It's not really a war on women so much as it's a war on our wallets. The problem comes when birth control and abortion becomes a matter of public policy which pretty much means public money. Don't like my opinion, attitude, or control then don't take my money. Who wants to provide birth control using public money? I've seen where health insurance carriers may be required to cover birth control. I've got news for everyone, most health insurance companies already do, and there is a lot of other things that they are now required to cover, some at 100% coverage like yearly health exams and colonoscopy, why aren't we all up in arms over free colonoscopy handouts to the "free shit army"? Who wants to require providing birth control with private money? The government, Obamacare, compelling the Catholic University to pay for its employees health care plans. What do you think the Sandra Fluke thing was all about? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
