Contraceptive Insurance: The Standpoint of a Political Conservative

reply to post by Unity_99

Actually your reasoning is completely sexist. You used a an apples and oranges scenario, but made them fit one round peg.

My reasoning is not sexist, that is merely your failure to correctly understand it.

I, however, am something of a sexist. I will always hold a woman as having superior value to myself and place her above my own interests. It is somewhat naive, and makes me prone to being exploited by the opposite sex, but let that be as it may.

Pick your topic. Is your topic about sex being an option, not a need, sort of like a hobby, or is it about the biological differences between men and women.

You're focusing on men and women where it doesn't even factor in.

The body is a system. Erectile dysfunction is the inability of the penis to become erect. Correcting this problem is in line with curing a problem.

Contraception is deliberately designed to impede the proper function of a healthy system, particularly in the case of estrogen/hormone therapy for the purposes of contraception (though hormone therapy, in and of itself, can be intended to correct an erratic and problematic hormonal cycle - at which point it is not being used as a contraceptive).

You are getting yourself preoccupied with the social stigmas - that an erect penis must be used for intercourse with a fertile female, or that contraceptives must be used as a means of preventing pregnancy.

Because it doesnt matter if the equipment is functioning well or not, sexual function is not a necessity.

Health insurance is taken to preserve one's health and cover treatments associated with restoring the normal function of the body.

Further, research shows that the male orgasm exercises the muscles surrounding the prostate gland, keeping it healthy and reducing cancer rates. It can be argued that it is a preventative measure - if a bit of a stretch of an argument.

Both men and women make the babies my dear.

... Oh.... that might explain the sock of failed experiments... I was beginning to think I was missing something.

Women have the extra need of pregancy protection to be equalized for the body types.

So... women just... get pregnant?

I thought the Virgin Mary was the exception, not the rule. Mammalian parthenogenesis exists only in theory, and has never been observed in the natural world (with a few historical anecdotes that get the discussion of plausibility started) or under laboratory persuasion.

So... I fail to understand why it is women require protection from pregnancy in the form of a pill.

But, there again... I'm a virgin... so my experience in the matter is horribly limited.

Are you saying that your medical service plans, ie the cost of the doctors appointment or clinic visit, is not covered for reproductive issues????

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Health Insurance companies, in the U.S., take a collection of money from their members each cycle (the exact amount dependent upon the type of plan the individuals are enrolled in and a number of individual factors). That money is, then, used to pay for the medical costs incurred by the members covered by the insurance companies.

Doctors bill the insurance company. However, each insurance company has fees they consider to be "reasonable" for the given procedure/service/etc. When doctors accept the terms of the insurance company - they accept business from that insurance company (and vice-versa). This makes insurance companies, to some degree, something of a "union of patients." Although that is rarely exploited in today's market.

Contraceptive pills require a doctor's prescription to acquire (this is part of the reason healthcare costs are going up - everything, including #ing NyQuil in some towns, needs a prescription - congesting the doctor's office for trivial matters). A doctor's visit can, however, be paid for out of pocket (and for considerably less than one would pay annually for a plan that includes coverage for such things). As can the prescription (which is a trivial amount).

However, the key oversight I was planning to go with, next, is that the rate of unwanted pregnancies will not drop with mandated contraceptive coverage. Unwanted pregnancies affect, disproportionately, the unemployed, underemployed, uninsured, and single-income household demographics within the adult population.

Which means making "the pill" an OTC medication would go farther in making contraceptives accessible than the current legislation could ever aspire.

reply to post by Misoir

This post is not to disparage you personally but the assertion that your argument is Conservative.

I'm young. I bounce back pretty quick.

Your response is detailed and well structured, and I can say that I share in many of your beliefs regarding morality... however, we differ on one key aspect.

We Catholics view human nature as entirely different as Liberals. Man is not inherently free and independent; we are members of the Body of Christ. Naturally we are social and political animals; requiring law, culture, and religion for proper order. Law is not meant simply to prevent harm but is derived from, and meant to advance, the “good”. This means that the law must be derived from Divine law, restricting human behavior so as to prevent sin and self-destruction; so virtue is necessary both within a legal context and a personal context. Merely protecting the “right”, as the Liberal state does, is not what society is meant to do; it must protect the “good”.

It is not the nature of the Holy Spirit to hide in the machinations of laws and punitive measures. It is the role of each of us, as followers of Christ, to minister his message to our fellow man. That responsibility cannot be borne by the system of law.

Otherwise, I cannot say I disagree with your post or your observations regarding the dangers of government. I am, however, getting quite tired and may not be making connections in the right places.

Basically - I hold that the government is not a tool of advancing society. That is the same line of reasoning used to justify the current incursions into the free market (if you want to call the chimera of a system we have a "free market"). The idea that the government can prevent harm to another person and be considered to know better than the individual is a dangerous precedent to establish, regardless of the intent.

Religious institutions are free to establish morality - however arbitrarily or logically they may go about it; and it is up to those of faith to minister to the population.

It is not the domain of government to minister, be an instrument of ministry, or be used to 'advance' society.

reply to post by Aim64C


I suggest for you to read this: The Conservative Vision of Authority

I have to sit back and shake my head at the idea that this is even being debated in the world of politics.

That a married couple who engage in intercourse while wanting to avoid pregnancy is somehow the issue of the woman being a "whore" who can't keep her legs crossed? Really? I can remember being taught about the rhythm method and coitus interruptus as natural means of pregnancy avoidance when I was a young women. Abstain while fertile! Pull out, Pull out! But, that was several years back and oral contraceptives have taken the place of those poorly affective methods. The good Catholic women (married of course!) all developed "female problems" when they had three kids and had to have...shhh...a hysterectomy. Now that was birth control.

Family planning, rather effective family planning is a necessity. And, that is best achieved through OBCs when one compares how effective OBCs are in comparison to the two above mentioned methods. 99% beats 50% anyday. And, at no point in time has the modern church ever balked about couples using the rhythm method or coitus interruptus (unless you count the few churches who believe that the biblical story of Onan is literal. oy.) Yes, sex does have consequences and with access to truthful learning material and physicians, couples can decide when and if the time is right to expand their families. But, an unwanted pregnancy does not equate to a loose woman.

I read a rather disingenuous argument above about how OBCs prevent normal function of a women's body while prescription medications for ED are to correct an abnormal body function. I say that ED is (usually) a very normal part of the male aging process. Men generally experiences ED at about the same time as their mates start to go through menopause. Perfect timing, eh? Why correct something that is normal and expected? Making OBCs over the counter is a dangerous frivolous thought. They are not without risks and physicians use the yearly prescription renewal as a means to get the women in for health/cancer screenings. That is a good thing.

And, if we can empower employers to deny coverage for birth control on moral issues, what is to stop them from denying drug coverage for other "lifestyle" medications? What about medications that follow a genetic track? There is a certain amount of safety in group coverage. We all pay the same regardless of how much we utilize the services. But, group coverage is never a guarantee. Life happens and it isn't pretty when some risk analysis program determines that you just aren't a safe bet to insure.

I don't see it as a conservative issue, a left issue, right issue, libertarian, progressive, green, purple, blue ! issue.

It is a constitutional issue.

The state has no right to infringe upon a religion.

Period!

Love, hate, despise, ridicule the religion all you want.

Make it a sexist issue.
Make it a conservative issue.
Make it a liberal issue.
Make it whatever, so no-one sees it for what it is.

A slap in the face of the Constitutiton. An infringement of rights. A deliberate abuse.

reply to post by Misoir


I starred you - not necessarily because I agree, but because it was a well put together post.



I would say that my argument is the progressive conservative one. At some point in this process society becomes involved even if it doesn't want to be. The point of involvement being at the least interventionist and most fiscally conservative point seems to be the most reasonable point for that to occur.

This is the problem with people not having a good understanding of the varied sliding scales on issues. Fiscally and socially conservative is not necessarily the same thing as religious conservative.


****************************************************************************************************************************

Is there anyone on this thread who really thinks that most of the "male enhancement" pills are for erectile dysfunction? We all know that most of them are not. Most of them are being used recreationally, and everyone knows it.

However, I will throw in that more young men are starting to suffer from not being able to get it up because of use of pornography. So insurance is paying for younger and younger men to use a pill to engage in a hobby because they've used their other hobby so much that they've rewired their brain to not respond to their real people.

yourbrainonporn.com...

Originally posted by Aim64C

I, however, am something of a sexist. I will always hold a woman as having superior value to myself and place her above my own interests. It is somewhat naive, and makes me prone to being exploited by the opposite sex, but let that be as it may.

Uh yeah - - and that's why I could tell immediately you were a guy from the "tone" of your posts.

If you held women superior - - you would support their independent right of choices (got that? choices - as in all forms of choice).

You don't hold women superior. You put them on a Man's version of a pedestal. I jumped off that years ago.

reply to post by Annee


Doesn't freedom of choice end when it removes freedom of choice from another?

reply to post by Annee

Uh yeah - - and that's why I could tell immediately you were a guy from the "tone" of your posts.

And how I can tell you're an old bat.

Or it could be that we've had similar conversations, before.

If you held women superior - - you would support their independent right of choices (got that? choices - as in all forms of choice).

In what way have I indicated a lack of support for a woman's right/ability to make choices?

You don't hold women superior. You put them on a Man's version of a pedestal. I jumped off that years ago.

I believe it's sufficient to say that you really don't understand how I view women. Not that it's really all that essential. You'll distort any dissenting opinion to vindicate your own perception of reality.

reply to post by Misoir

I suggest for you to read this: The Conservative Vision of Authority

It's an interesting read. However, I stand by the point that it is not the responsibility of the state to minister to the moral needs of society. More specifically, this should not be expressed within the Federal Government (a state can, theoretically, be a theocracy so long as it complies with the Constitution's provisions for individual and legal rights: that's the beauty of our government, outsiders have very little say in what you do with your state).

You are not going to be able to legislate immorality away. Nor do you make a person or society moral through the legislation of moral principles. People can comply with laws without complying to a sense of moral standards (which are derived from integrity to one's own identity).

reply to post by NiteNGale2

That a married couple who engage in intercourse while wanting to avoid pregnancy is somehow the issue of the woman being a "whore" who can't keep her legs crossed?

Where is that being said?

The government wants to justify mandating insurance policies cover a prescription contraceptive based on the argument that it will increase women's availability to birth control.

However, the argument is null and void. Married, insured, employed couples do not display the same rates of unwanted/unexpected pregnancy of the uninsured, low-income demographics (that also display a higher incidence of multiple sexual partners outside of wedlock). Even when they do, most are willing (or at least able) to accept the associated parental responsibilities to little social detriment.

Making OBCs over the counter is a dangerous frivolous thought. They are not without risks

www.medscape.com...

In Mexico, oral contraceptives are widely available without a prescription, and women using them without first seeking medical advice were no more likely to have contraindications than those who saw a physician. Two US studies showed that potential oral contraceptive users could identify contraindications to oral contraceptives, except for unrecognized hypertension in older women, using a checklist.

Regarding concerns that women will not use oral contraceptives correctly when they are made available without a prescription, Dr. Grossman points out that little evidence suggests that clinician counseling is useful, and that even when a clinic visit is required, compliance is not perfect.

Even the argument taken against OTC OCP (OCD!) is not grounded in medical science - but rather in the argument that the problem is not availability of contraceptives but in the social nature of teen pregnancy (which is apparently the center of the UK's issue). IE - making oral contraceptives over-the-counter will not greatly impact the availability, and will not result in statistically significant changes in the rates of unintentional pregnancy.

and physicians use the yearly prescription renewal as a means to get the women in for health/cancer screenings. That is a good thing.

That's some convoluted reasoning. "Well... women are too dumb to schedule health checkups of their own accord, so we'll just make it a requirement for getting contraceptives... the little harlots." *ribs* At least, that's what I'm hearing.

By that logic, I should be forced to get a testicular and prostate exam before being allowed to purchase male enhancement pills (which should, similarly, be available only through prescription - they are not without risks, and involve hormonal supplements, as well).

You've got to cut the umbilical, already.

reply to post by Aim64C


Either sex is a hobby. so erectile stuff is extra's in life or not.

But when it comes to telling a woman who has the strike against her of being impregated easily, or a man who has this outie that might need help to keep functioning, you are talking about TWO EQUAL BUT DIFFERENT BODY TYPES. AND BOTH NEED THEIR NEEDS MET BY MEDICAL SYSTEMS EQUALLY. Women need to be kept safe from unwanted pregnancies, which is what any conservative wants as well. Men think they need erect penises. Even on that scale, the woman's need is an intrinsic one and the other is an extra and of less importance, but you see Im Not a Conservative, so I'd treat them both semi equal but the Woman having to protect the unwanted pregnancy would come first. Since that costs the most money to the STATE.

But women's bodies which are completely different than mens have their own unique needs that must be covered as do mens..

I understood what you meant just fine. A man is not performing normally so he's broke and needs the treatment. That is a male unique problem.

Women have female unique problems, their lives get broke easily. Its not like, yes we know that now go suffer in the corner your meant to be slaves to us. Savvy? Substantive equality is the only kind that matters. Equalizing different situations.

Both sexes, need specialized and abundant health care, with their unique bodies.

And you're the only western country I know that even has this debate going on, its always been covered and you guys are in the dark ages, dinosaur ages for equality on the western front standards.

Health care has to be tailored to everyone's individual needs.

reply to post by Unity_99

But when it comes to telling a woman who has the strike against her of being impregated easily, or a man who has this outie that might need help to keep functioning, you are talking about TWO EQUAL BUT DIFFERENT BODY TYPES.

I think you're confused. The conditions affecting the two are not equal, and are most certainly different. ED is a dysfunction of the body. Pregnancy is not. Further, ED is not a condition that can be controlled by the afflicted. Pregnancy requires the conscious inclusion of an "external stimulus" that, outside of criminal cases, is voluntarily applied.

Women need to be kept safe from unwanted pregnancies, which is what any conservative wants as well.

You're not very accustomed to someone challenging your opinions, are you?

Sex (of the vaginal variety involving the insertion of a penis) is not a mandatory act. The risk of an unwanted pregnancy comes from a completely voluntary and discretionary act. Protection from unwanted pregnancies does not require the use of an oral contraceptive.

As such, why should an insurance company be mandated to cover the costs of a treatment that attempts to manage the risks of a completely voluntary act?

Women have female unique problems, their lives get broke easily.

Uh-huh...

So, I ask again... why would a girl voluntarily participate in an activity that could 'break her life' without ensuring the risks are properly managed?

At the end of the day - the risk of pregnancy is a woman's responsibility. There is no guarantee the 'partner' will be around for the child - and one cannot presume he will when factoring the risks and impacts regarding pregnancy.

One cannot make the responsibility of men and women equal via prescription or other means outside of personal conviction.

If she has sex - she is responsible for the outcome. Sure - the male is, too - but he's not anatomically attached to the situation (a fact that would do women well to remember when considering who they are sleeping with).

Both sexes, need specialized and abundant health care.

Like I said - I hold myself (and other humans) above the standard of barnyard animals.

A little common sense and discretion goes a long way in this world.

The problem of unwanted pregnancy has little to do with the availability of birth control (as Britain's data attests) - and stems more from a lack of discretion regarding participation in sexual encounters.

Treating sex as an expected and casual exchange between two members of the opposite sex is simply irresponsible in and of itself. To then shove responsibility for protecting from pregnancy off on contraceptives is even worse. They are risk management tools, not risk evasion cards.

Furthermore, you know that 13 year old who chose contraceptive without parental approval.

Guess what, once a human body can reproduce, each individual HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THAT FOR THEMSELVES.

And once the sex card is up and running, they also have the right to choose how they view their sexuality, and whether they want to be virgins until marriage and owned by a patriarchal system or not. Or not.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

An Insurance Companies right to opperate or be able to get a licence falls under the jurisdiction of the State and Federal Goverment.

I wasn't aware the Federal Government was granted the authority to regulate business licensing. No such authority is granted under the Constitution or its amendments.

The State government, however, has every right to establish licensing laws. The complete lack of Federal domain means that States can, legally, formulate any set of laws and criteria governing business they so desire; so long as it is developed in accordance with their State's constitution.

If you don't want to use a condom...or take the pill or any other type of contraception Plan B or whatever....no one can force you to....the rights of another individual who wants or needs this contraception.....must be covered under the laws of the land.

Wait... what?

I'll recycle the argument I used, earlier.

Everyone should have virus protection on their computer, right? It helps to protect them from malicious programs that can put their finances, identity, and even personal security at risk.

As such, the Government needs to ensure that every person who wants it can have access to it. Because of this, any company contracting internet service to a customer must, also, provide virus protection ("free of charge") to the customer under the proposed legislation.

You use AVG - a free program, but not considered up-to-snuff by the legislation's arbitrary standards (correct or incorrect, it is the law). Your internet provider still has to provide you with a valid software license. As such, your internet premiums will have to go up - IE - you are being made to pay for a program that you don't use and don't want because someone else has been deemed to require it.

Does that put the issue in a less emotionally-charged context for you?

Hate to be the one to tell you but...a Latex Condoms Matrix is not constructed tight enough to prevent the H1N1 VIRUS from permeating the CONDOM...so even though some protection is better than none....Condoms as not completely effective in preventing the spread of AIDS. Also...yes the state is entity providing the Hospitals licensing and certification but if you want Federal Money for updated Emergency Room Equipment or More money for a Highly Trained first responders unit this money comes from the FEDS so you sometimes have to play by their game. Case in point...Nancy Reagan BEGGED a Republican controlled Section of the U.S. Legislature to allow the use of STEM CELL that are thrown away after invitro-insemenation....continued..Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity
continued...Ronald Reagan had contracted ALZHEIMER'S....one of the types of Illnesses that can be treated with stem cells or research on them. Thanks to the MAPPING OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN GENOME AS WELL AS MAPPING OUR CLOSE HUMAN RELATIVES....Great Apes...and other Primates of which MAN is a part of this group....PRIMATES....we no longer have to use only a small number of approved Stem Cell Lines because SOME IDIOT decieded that it was much more important to throw away Thousands of stem cells that are thrown away in a Biohazard DUMPSTER....than to use these Stem Cells in Genetic Experiments to help CURE CANCER, AIDS, SPINAL INJURY, M.S. LOU GERIGS, ALZHEIMERS, MUSCULAR DISTROPHY, DIABETES, ALL SORTS OF NERVOUS SYSTEM OR SPINAL INJURIES, BRAIN TRAUMA....THE LIST GOES ON FOREVER.

Now let me ask you...with the Cure....the ACTUAL FREEKIN' CURE...FOR CANCER AND ALL THESE HUMAN AS WELL AS ANIMAL SCOURGES FOR A MILLION YEARS OR MORE....almost here for the taking to cure you sick Grandma or provide unique Geneticly Engineered Bone Marrow to your 12 ear old Daughter or Son...or replace by GROWING a new Heart Valve for your DAD or taking a sample of your Wifes Breast Tumur Tissue....Geneticlly Modifying it...injecting it back into the STAGE FOUR Tumor growing out of control in her breast and within a weeks time...have the the Tumor well on it's way to never have being there as what was done is Genetically Modify cells to grow properly and since STEM CELL can become ANY CELL OUR BODIES GENETICS DETERMINE IT WILL BE...so can WE by making that Stem Cell and the Genes from one of your Wifes infected Breast Cancerour Tumor cell replecate in a certain fasion...there are many ways to go here and different problems will require different answers but in this case...the reinjected cell has been engineered to RAPIDLY MULTIPLY and INFECT ALL THE TUMORS CELLS WITH A RETROVIRUS. This Virus transfers the geneticly Altered Code via infection of he other ells in the tumor...until all the tumors cells have had their DNA rewritten from one that causes it to grow abnormal...because thats all CANCER is....Regular Cells that grow abnormally when they split by Mytosis. If you rewrite the Genetic code back to what it is supposd to tell the cell what to split into then...the Virus Infects the Cells of ANY CANCER OR DISEASE FOR THAT MATTER....rewrites the Genetic Code when they are infected and transfers immunity as they split and to all future generations! THIS IS WHAT SI AT STAKE AND....YOU are worried about a few kids having sex?

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Annee

 

Doesn't freedom of choice end when it removes freedom of choice from another?

I don't understand that.

Please explain.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Annee

 

Doesn't freedom of choice end when it removes freedom of choice from another?

I don't understand that.

Please explain.

I am probably going to regret butting in here but....What the Hell! It's like a trick question. A question that certain Professors LOVE to ask of their students knowing full well it means...NOTHING!
Freedom of Choice....is just a statement but as how it applies here...it is being refered to as a Womans Freedom to decide whether or not they want to either decide to prevent pregnancy in all manners available legally....or to get Pregnant....or to have the choice not to use contraception at all! This could be ebecause she doesn't like the feeling of a Condom or for whatever possible concepts. But the defining WORD IS CHOICE!

Now some people don't like the idea of of people doing or condoning things they find objectionable....so they will wrap a fairly simple question in a riddle and down it with a shot of obsession.

No as far as these TWO COMPLETELY UNRELATED QUESTIONS OR STATEMENTS....or are they? The statement and question was...Doesn't Freedom of Choice end when....it removes Freedom of Choice from Another?

Answer....NO! Reason.....there are TWO ISSUES here in this combined statement. I have a Drivers License....I have Freedom of Choice to DRIVE and get a Drivers License. The DRUNK that just killed two kids crossing the street has ost his Choice to ever Get a Drivers Licence and with any LUCK...will loose his choice to keep on BREATHING.

The two concepts are Mutually Exclusive and they are not compatable so you were right to say...HEY! I don't get that! Split Infinity

reply to post by Unity_99

Guess what, once a human body can reproduce, each individual HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THAT FOR THEMSELVES.

You're getting off on a tangent, here.

I've said nothing about the concept of parental approval or non.

However, no; the individual does not have the ability to choose whether or not sex will result in pregnancy, or not. Sex (in the 'classical' sense) always runs the risk of pregnancy; even surgeries can fail. One can choose to employ a number of risk management tools, or not. That is always an individual choice.

And once the sex card is up and running, they also have the right to choose how they view their sexuality, and whether they want to be virgins until marriage and owned by a patriarchal system or not. Or not.

But they don't have the ability to choose whether or not sex results in pregnancy.

The problems with your earlier argument revolved around treating pregnancy as though it was some kind of communicable disease that should be addressed with a "vaccine" (contraceptive) provided by health insurance companies.

It is, clearly, not the case. The risk is assosciated with a completely voluntary and controllable factor.

Either you accept that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to engage in sex, or you accept that a woman has no control over the conditions surrounding her sexual encounters.

If you accept that a woman does have the right and authority to control when and where she has sex - then you cannot treat pregnancy as a disease that "just happens" to women.

If you accept that a woman has no control... then you can make the argument - but that's not going to get you too far.

You can't apply a double-standard to this and shove pregnancy off as a victimizing scenario.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

Hate to be the one to tell you but...a Latex Condoms Matrix is not constructed tight enough to prevent the H1N1 VIRUS from permeating the CONDOM...so even though some protection is better than none....Condoms as not completely effective in preventing the spread of AIDS.

You ... uh... didn't read what I posted at all.

Go back, read again.

You saw "virus" and took off like a bat out of hell in the wrong direction.

Though your enthusiasm must be admired.

THIS IS WHAT SI AT STAKE AND....YOU are worried about a few kids having sex?

I don't think you have the slightest clue what is at stake, my rabidly deranged friend.

All of humanity's scientific advances and endeavors can be learned and accounted for by individuals of my caliber, quite easily. Truly beneficial, powerful, useful, or otherwise advances will always drive society despite the efforts of governments, religions, unions, or any other metahuman construct. Resistance, as they say, is futile. Those with the power and ability to survive replace or simply out-number those without. Social evolution applies as much as genetic/environmental.

As such - future generations are incredibly important to the continuity of our nation and ideology. This has become incredibly apparent to me after the early loss of both of my parents (and the bits and pieces of them I see in myself and brothers).

And this is where you can't quite seem to wrap your mind around my standpoint. I'm not against the use of birth control.

I am, however, against the intrusion of government into personal affairs. Which is the crux of my dissent with the proposed legislation.

However. I also take extreme exception to the notion that "girls will get pregnant without birth control available to them." This argument is based around the idea that women have (or should be expected to have) no control over the sexual contact they have with others. In short - it is the subliminal message that women are sex objects. It also stipulates that women should not be expected to be discerning in the sexual relationships they do have.

Yes, it's a personal choice to use contraceptives. The government should be involved as minimally as possible (meaning it should be available over-the-counter, without prescription). Each individual, however, is still individually responsible for their own future and well-being; as well as the consequences of the risks they take.

This "responsibility free" society we keep trying to create is going to really come back to haunt us.

reply to post by Aim64C


Uh....I am in agreement with what you posted about but I have noticed there are things that you do not accept as options....unless I have read you wrong....That being...Insurance companies should and are in my state....as well as Hospitals reguardless what faith they are base upon on the sign outside...because they are in reality a CORPORATE MONEY MAKING MACHINE.....must provide Morning After Contraceptive Drugs such as PLAN B and others...that does not allow a Fertalized Human Egg to implant itself into the Uteran Wall...thus Pregnancy is avoided.

I think this is a hell of alot better than a woman becoming pregnant then having an ABORTION months later.
Split Infinity

reply to post by Aim64C

ALSO....YOU DISAPOINT ME FOR NOT SEEING THE HUMOR IN MY POSTING A VIRUS DESIGNATED H1N1.....this was a JOKE to go along with your BARNYARD STATEMENT! LOL!

You see...H1N1 is SWINE FLU! LOL! Another good Barnyard Joke Wasted! LOL! Split Infinity

Your standpoint is irrelevant, one because you are male. Two because you wish to force your archaic views on to my healthcare concerns. Women are not baby factories, and should have access to affordable reproductive services. Also there are any number of reasons birth control is prescribed outside of contraception. That if it is not provided by your insurance plan is often too expensive to afford. I have to take it or I run the risk of developing cysts on my ovaries that can result in me losing any chance at future reproduction. I happen to be fortunate enough to have a plan that pays for it however there are many that do not.

Now you tell me just how would you feel if one of your "guys" developed a cyst the size of a peach or better yet a basketball how you would feel? How would you feel if it were a bunch of old women that could not possibly even begin to understand that condition deciding that you just simply had to deal with it, when it was in their ability to prevent it?

Conservatives are just a funny group of people. The only time they care about life at all is when women are the ones carrying and making decisions on whether or not they wish to create it. Once the kid is born, it is just another mouth sponging off their tax dollars.