It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Birth Control Controversy

page: 12
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta
Insurance plans cover smokers, drunkards and fat asses, are you gonna apply them to your
series of lifestyle grouping?


It covers idiots, too; feel safer?

"Smokers, drunkards and fat asses" are descriptions of people; "pregnancy" is a natural condition following procreative sex or insemination.
Only an idiot would confuse them.




You have elected to treat pregnancy as a disease, when it is in fact a natural and normal function of the female of any species.
No, that is how you are interpreting it, big difference


I am not interpreting anything.

Progressives continually reapeat the "women's health care" mantra, and speak of "prevention" as if pregnancy was a disease. It is your own rationalization thrown back at you in plain English.

It is so revealing that you instinctively recoil from un-biased observations, and try to distance yourself from the reality of the condition and the tenets of basic health insurance coverage.


Do conservatives understand that their are many lifestyle choices that are essentially covered by insurance?
Old people who die more often that young people are making young people pay for their old asses dying.


Age is no more a lifestyle choice than immaturity or stupidity. Are you arguing for "preventive care" against supporting an aging population? Goes back to the eugenics basis of abortion, doesn't it? How about "Death Panels;" want those, too?


should not be forced to pay for a fat ass who eats nasty found and smokes
cigarettes, yet I do, if you want to get all technical about it.


If anything, those are "pre-existing conditions" that progressives demanded be covered, regardless of cost.
How about congenital or hereditary diseases/cancers, such as breast cancer and hemophilia? Want to piss on them, too?

jw
edit on 4-3-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by mastahunta
Insurance plans cover smokers, drunkards and fat asses, are you gonna apply them to your
series of lifestyle grouping?


It covers idiots, too; feel safer?

"Smokers, drunkards and fat asses" are descriptions of people; "pregnancy" is a natural condition following procreative sex or insemination.
Only an idiot would confuse them.




You have elected to treat pregnancy as a disease, when it is in fact a natural and normal function of the female of any species.
No, that is how you are interpreting it, big difference


I am not interpreting anything.

Progressives continually reapeat the "women's health care" mantra, and speak of "prevention" as if pregnancy was a disease. It is your own rationalization thrown back at you in plain English.

It is so revealing that you instinctively recoil from un-biased observations, and try to distance yourself from the reality of the condition and the tenets of basic health insurance coverage.


Do conservatives understand that their are many lifestyle choices that are essentially covered by insurance?
Old people who die more often that young people are making young people pay for their old asses dying.


Age is no more a lifestyle choice than immaturity or stupidity. Are you arguing for "preventive care" against supporting an aging population? Goes back to the eugenics basis of abortion, doesn't it? How about "Death Panels;" want those, too?


should not be forced to pay for a fat ass who eats nasty found and smokes
cigarettes, yet I do, if you want to get all technical about it.


If anything, those are "pre-existing conditions" that progressives demanded be covered, regardless of cost.
How about congenital or hereditary diseases/cancers, such as breast cancer and hemophilia? Want to piss on them, too?

jw
edit on 4-3-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)


Pregnancy can be a choice, if religious people focus on their own bodies and moral acts.
What is so hard about that? This goes back to having the pulpit dictate the terms of morality.
Which then turns into the state, like mandating cameras be put up vaginas because a state
official is informed by "god". Someone else's sexual activity is not your realm to dictate,
but per usual where there is a will, there is a way.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by AuntB
 

---snip --- in other words, some forms, probably the newest versions would not be covered, but then the will provide the generic for a few bucks...
ya know, this is the second time i've read this from you and someone needs to point out that you are mistaken.

Once upon a time, many insurance policies readily covered most generics for most ailments ... however, times are a changing and now, with Obummercare, insurers are substantially discounting the (inflated) costs of name-brand medicines in lieu of generics. need sources?

Obamacare.gov In 2011, seniors who reach the coverage gap will receive a 50 percent discount when buying Medicare Part D covered brand-name prescription drugs.
notice, this is for covered drugs only.

here's another which i've edited to meet T&C standards - (hope i didn't miss any offensive commentary but if i did, please bring it to my attention so i can edit it within the time allowed)

The Angry Pharmacist Now you may be thinking “gee TAP, 10% cut in your fee isn’t so bad, thats only like a buck”. Therein lies the problem. MediCal didn’t cut our dispensing fee, they cut THE WHOLE FreaKING REIMBURSEMENT.

Quick and Dirty:

Drug costs 200 bucks. We get paid 210 bucks. Take 10% off of that 210 bucks and you’re left with 190 bucks. The drug still f***ing costs the pharmacy 200 bucks. We make a whopping -10 dollars. Thats right, the pharmacy LOSES 10 dollars (in this case) with EACH F***ING HIGH DOLLAR TRADE NAME FILL. Throw in some chemo drugs like Xeloda that costs the pharmacy THOUSANDS or HIV drugs at 600 bucks each, and you have yourself a closed pharmacy.

But no, it gets better. You see, MediCal is in bed with the drug manufacturers. The drug manufacturers give “kickbacks…er..REBATES” to the state to use THEIR product. (brand-name) Why else do you think Nasonex is the ONLY nasal steroid instead of generic Flonase. Why do you think generic Morphine ER isn’t covered, but BRAND ONLY Kadian is? The state is getting a rebate, not the consumer, for having these on their formulary.

So not only do we lose money on each brand-name prescription, but we are forced to use brand name for certain drug classes.

See how absolutely f***ed this is? So whats a pharmacy to do?

Easy, send the patient somewhere else for brand name drugs. California Business and Profession code prevents the selling of products for less than what it costs you. Its part of the anti-predatory pricing laws.

Does this suck for the MediCal patients who need HIV/Actos/Nexium/Kadian/etc? Yup, it sure does. Our hearts are out to those patients who can’t get their drugs filled, but what other choice do we have? The chains can absorb the cost for a time until they pull the plug, and the independents cant absorb any of that.

Oh no, it doesn’t stop there. You know how I said that the cuts were put into law June 1st but got held up in court? Well they made the cuts retroactive. Pharmacies are going to get a BILL from MediCal for the 10% difference for EVERY FreaKING PRESCRIPTION they filled since June 1st.

so in essence, not only are BC pills restricted by independent policy but generics will become extinct.


here, we are talking about no coverage of birth control, period!!!
yeah, so ??? as a religious obligation, it's not so much a choice for those who adhere to the doctrine prescribed.


to say the system is broke, well, ya, no kidding!!!
totally agreed.


to think that we each should be able to pick and chose just what we wish to be covered for, and our rates be adjusted accordingly, well, wouldn't this kind of kill the insurance companies?
ummmm, NO ... the auto insurances are doing just fine with individual coverage options.


I mean, just who is gonna buy insurance for juvenile diabetes, unless they have the disease??
people who comprise the "pool" of juveniles should foot the bill.
why should those who do not share or have any risk, be required to pay?


the insurance companies can only make money if they can pool all the risks together
BS and doubly BS ... risk is not universal hence no policy should be either.
besides, why should any insurance company profit on the pains/ills of others ?????????



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevpa

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by WTFover
But, the fact is, no matter how many "reasons" you dream up, that pesky little First Amendment just keeps getting in your way.

That is the heart of the issue and all the Sandra Flukes in the world won't change it.



What does the first amendment have to do with birth control?


Its another typical right wing way to instill their Fascist ideas on America,
just like Citizens Untied. Constitution is toilet paper to be used like toilet
paper I guess.


I've enjoyed reading these awkward rantings from mastahunta that make no sense whatsoever. I understand your liberal viewpoints, and that's great, you are involved in politics, more people should be. But is it me or are there more and more threads on ats popping up with these stupid liberal and right wing rants? As I said in another thread, you should debate FACTS
I have used facts,
Fact A; organizations can opt out
Fact B; Insurance companies lump money together, which means Catholic money pays
for contraception and abortive procedures if we look how money is coalesced and
disbursed to pay for claims.
Fact C; Taking fact B into account makes the majority of this uproar moot.




I do hope that you are aware that our country is a Republic, mastahunta. Now that is a FACT. It is true that some republicans may have fascist ideas just the same as some democrats may have communist ideas. Which one is better you ask? The system we have in place is better because the citizens hold the power in a Republic. And no, the power elite do NOT hold all the cards by just putting someone in as President, because we have the power to vote at a local level which makes more of a difference than voting for the President. More of which people need to do but for some reason usually just forget to.


Citizens hold the power until it is transferred into private hands, then that power is nothing more than
a slogan.



And back to my point, if I were to say "Obama is using his communist viewpoints to get Obamacare and is ruining our country by spending trillions of dollars we don't have because he is just pushing his communist ideas on us," how does that sound? It sounds stupid just like you sound. So please get over yourself and move on.

And please people, lighten up and enrich us all with your talent and not your hatred.


How about you go and use ATS the way you'd like and I will use it the way I like?

Although your impression of a right winger was very good



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by yamammasamonkey
reply to post by mastahunta
 


It is cheaper to buy a bullet for every person on welfare than to support them the rest of their lives. Is your whole argument about cost? The problem has nothing to do with insurance companies or money. The problem is the Government demanding a person or group buy something that they are against. No matter what it is it's wrong. Would it be right for the Government to require vegetarian food producers or restaurants provide meals with meat for their employees? Hell naw!!! Quit trying to make others do what you want. You want birth control? Go buy it with your money. You want your work to provide it? Find a job with an employer that doesn't have objections. You're like the #ing Gestapo you #ing people!


That is true, I am sure one day when America is desperate enough that will become a new line
of debate, is that eugenic policy you are suggesting?


The problem is solved, they don't have to provide coverage.

You are like the Catholic Aristocracy, put camera's up women to terrorize them into submission,
I love all the winger and their suggestions. Bullet in the head of the useless eaters

and State sponsored rape all to uphold religious dictate and thrust it upon individuals
who can decide religious matters in private.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by yamammasamonkey
 


well, ya know, on a deep level I feel that it wrong to kill other people, american or not.
so, using you argument here, since a good part of my tax money is going to a military/industrial complex that has a tendency to start wars and drop bombs on innocent people all over the world, well, this is all wrong!!!
my money shouldn't be going into things I feel so deeply are wrong!!!

is that what you are saying here??

getting jobs in the current economic climate is rather tough, so, ya, if your boss decides he doesn't ant to include whatever here, and you happen to need whatever, it should such an easy solution, just go and find another job, or pay for it with your own money!!!
today the whatever will be birth control.
tomorrow it will be something else that is a small enough issue that it doesn't cause a mass of people to stand up and say no to...
then it might be the treatment for autism, or a myriad of not so common but much need care..

well, got to tell ya something, if the insurance is mandated, it best serve everyone's needs. you ain't gonna pick and chose just what is gonna be covered what isn't gonna be covered like that. sorry....not if you intend on forcing me the crap insurance that will be offered by the time everyone takes out the this and that and the other thing!!!

there are quite a few things that insurance companies cover free of charge....they are considered preventative, and well, my last pregnancy, I about lost my ability to walk!!! so to say that pregnancy shouldn't be considered as important to prevent as any disease out there is a mistake in my opinion. some women will become at least temporarily handicapped if they become pregnant!

and considering that the same religions that are so against women using birth control also teach that women are to be obedient to their husbands, well, I don't see the argument that women can prevent pregnancy by not having sex as valid, since the same religions would love to strip women of her ability to say no!!!



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
i'm wondering ... would you agree with the concept that "the pill" and only pharmaceuticals should be universally covered when and only when deemed "medically necessary" ??

i could be in agreement with that argument and truly don't see a religious conflict as medically necessary usually averts the entire premise of "pregnancy".

however, in such a stance, i would also have to insist that condoms were NOT covered as they are specific to the activity of sex, whereas the pill and other treatments for women are not.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
i'm wondering ... would you agree with the concept that "the pill" and only pharmaceuticals should be universally covered when and only when deemed "medically necessary" ??

i could be in agreement with that argument and truly don't see a religious conflict as medically necessary usually averts the entire premise of "pregnancy".

however, in such a stance, i would also have to insist that condoms were NOT covered as they are specific to the activity of sex, whereas the pill and other treatments for women are not.


Ya, I don't want to offend religious and I don't women to be barred due to religious objections
of other people.
I think it would be smart to create a supplemental option, if it would end this wedge issue,
I would be for it. It might be smart for Religious to create new funds that segregate their money
from larger pools so that their money is not used to pay for claims relating to things they object to.
edit on 4-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

as far as you problems with the perscriptions, well, don't know what to tell ya, you quotes refer to medicare and donut holes, so, well, guess with your logic, you should go and find an alternative insurance provider for your perscriptions?
with my insurance I get really cheap generics!! and no, don't believe that this is the second time you've read a post saying this, but well, go ahead, believe what you want.

as it stands, the perscription drug plan is just plain messed up, and I think most seniors find it very confusing and kind of wish bush would have just left medicare alone!
just like they should be leaving healthcare alone now, instead of having the nightmare of obamacare!! I mean if you ain't gonna fix something right, just leave it alone and both bush and obama only benefitted the insurance and drug companies! but to tell ya the truth, those doctors, those hospitals, those pharmicists, that are complaining, well, they are just as dependant on the gov't and insurance companies handing out the money as the welfare people with their medicaid cards!! and with dependency comes servitude!!! the trick is to get ourselves in a position where we need neither and for that to happen the providers are gonna have to take a haircut, since our healthcare system is just plain unaffordable, for the people, for the businesses, and for the state!!! and the healthcare system was built by use to serve us! if it isn't serving us, and it isn't, then there should be no problem in tearing it down and building something that will! we certainly shouldn't be forcing people to spend a ton of money that they don't have to participate in the system!

and that right there is a bigger argument that the "oh, but it's birth control, and I d on't believe my money should be going for it!"
hey, I live on a shoestring budget, if it wasn't for my boss paying more of my premiums I would be uninsured...and this stupid mandate would have me chosing between food, shelter, warmth, or a stupid insurance politicy that really doesn't serve me well anyways.


as far as auto insurance, well, let's see, I can't go to any insurance company say I want liability insurance if I have a head on collision but not if I run over my neighbor, can I?? I am assuming you are referring to liability and collision. well, sorry, but you might not have a choice on the collision if you have a lein on the car!! and you will have to have the liability at least in most states if not all, since the gov't mandates it, just like they seem to think that they should be mandating healthcare!!

what I think we are seeing is them hashing out just what the bare minimum of that mandated healthcare should provide, just like there is a bare minimum that must be provided in your liability insurance on your car!



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


I think it would be smart to create a supplemental option --- snip --- It might be smart for Religious to create new funds that segregate their money from larger pools so that their money is not used to pay for claims relating to things they object to
as much as i would like to agree with either suggestion, i don't see where that would be applicable to Obamacare as it passed.

any supplemental option is going to cost additional funds (from wherever) ... so where's the universal coverage?

groups that can claim any exemption are not fully participating as everyone is expected to and i'm already PO'd that Congress exempted themselves.

why would you even suggest a segregated fund ??? i thought Obamacare was aimed at the collective approach.

i'm all for not spending money on things of which i don't approve or consent, i just don't see Obamacare meeting that standard.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Your arguments are so very logical and sound................so I'll make a deal..........I'll propose a similar mandate that if accepted, I will too support the contraception mandate.

Here is my proposal:

I propose that humanity has a right to lead healthy lives. Personally, heart disease runs within my family and so I am at great risk of having it myself. In fact, my insurance rates are higher as a result of this risk.

However, there is something amazing out there that could help me prevent heart disease. I don't feel like dying early in life from this disease that has plagued my family. I know it is preventable if only I had the money or ability to do this one thing that has been proven time and time again to lower risks of heart disease.

In fact this one thing I'm going to propose has worked extremely well for France. Even though the common French citizen has a diet high in saturated fat and cholesterol due to the amounts of cheese, butters, and meats consumed, they have a very low incident of heart disease.

I propose the "A Glass a Day of Red Wine Insurance Mandate". Wine has many compounds within it that support a healthy heart. Compounds such as resveratrol and anti-oxidants have proven to help with heart health and prevent the plague of heart disease, which is the number one cause of death in the United States of America. In fact a glass of wine a day has proven to support heart healthy functions in many scientific studies.

A good but cheap bottle of wine costs approximately $10 a bottle. Each bottle has around 4 glasses of wine contained within it so let's just say 2 bottles a week would cover me. This would cost me approximately $80 a month (which, oddly enough, is the approximate cost of birth control). However, just think of the savings insurance companies could have. They may not have to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars on me if I would ever need heart surgery or possibly even a heart transplant. If the insurance company would only pay me and the many others at risk around $80 a month they could prevent so many future costs that would be associated with my genetic predispositions.

It is only logical that this mandate should be passed by our beloved government. It would insure healthy hearts everywhere in the United States where heart disease is a major killer. It would save us from ourselves and protect our right to comfort, health, and a sound mind. As you can tell this mandate has all the required pieces that allow us to logically condone the contraception mandate.........so vote for my proposal today.

Thank you and may logic prevail!

edit on 4-3-2012 by Bugman82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


When a woman can't pay for yet when it should automatically be covered in health insurance, yes they are. When religious institutes say "No, you can't have birth control" yes, they are.
How do you know, exactly, she's paying to go there herself? How do you know she's not there because of loans, or a scholarship, or her parents are paying for it? How do you know she "has the money to pay herself"? I'm in college right now, with no job, no car, no finances whatsoever, and my parents are paying for everything for me right now.

Again, I ask, how do you know she has the money to pay for it without insurance? Without being covered by my step-fathers insurance, my birth control would cost $60 per month. Do you honestly think a jobless, carless person like myself can actually afford that? It should be covered no matter what.

I don't see you having a problem with insurance covering insulin, which doesn't cure diabetes but treats it. I don't see you having a problem with insurance covering Viagra, which only gives men boners, and doesn't cure their ED.

I smell a hypocrite.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Just for the sake of argument, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be required to fund birth control for anyone?
It's a personal choice to use, therefore an individual should have no issues paying for it on their own right?

If it is already in your insurance plan, fantastic! If not, request it. If they can not/will not provide it, buy it yourself or find another job that has insurance that covers it. A 30 day supply for $9 at Target can't exactly make you broke, unless your a college student who wants to go on tv to tell everyone your sexual activity is at such a high level that buying it yourself will make you starve to death.


No Federal involvement is needed. Republicans and Democrats should stay out of the issue period and let the individuals and insurance companies work it out. No insurance you say? How about not getting Starbucks for at least two times in a month or just say to to two Mcdonalds meals and there you go! You have saved enough money to buy birth control for 30 days!

What you say? The $9 birth control is just a republican talking point? A false rumor? A lie?
Hang on a sec...let me pull up the good folks at NPR.

www.npr.org...





edit on 4-3-2012 by mr3dboot because: Forgot to include link for source.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

any supplemental option is going to cost additional funds (from wherever) ... so where's the universal coverage?

Universal care is in the garbage heap because marketers succeeded in scaring the
bejesus out of the population, fearing a communist takeover and all... Obama caved big time.



groups that can claim any exemption are not fully participating as everyone is expected to and i'm already PO'd that Congress exempted themselves.

why would you even suggest a segregated fund ??? i thought Obamacare was aimed at the collective approach.

i'm all for not spending money on things of which i don't approve or consent, i just don't see Obamacare meeting that standard.




The Healthcare plan did not meet expectations thats for sure , but at the same time it succeeded in
several things. Returning to a rescission ruled industry is gonna be the stupidest thing Americans can
do, which is what a full repeal will provide. Back to pre condition barring, another bad move for many
people.

It didn't fulfill its collective approach because ultimately it attempted to appeal to the objections of
corporatists.

The man should have stuck to his guns, instead he brokered a bastard



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr3dboot
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Just for the sake of argument, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be required to fund birth control for anyone?
It's a personal choice to use, therefore an individual should have no issues paying for it on their own right?

If it is already in your insurance plan, fantastic! If not, request it. If they can not/will not provide it, buy it yourself or find another job that has insurance that covers it. A 30 day supply for $9 at Target can't exactly make you broke, unless your a college student who wants to go on tv to tell everyone your sexual activity is at such a high level that buying it yourself will make you starve to death.


No Federal involvement is needed. Republicans and Democrats should stay out of the issue period and let the individuals and insurance companies work it out. No insurance you say? How about not getting Starbucks for at least two times in a month or just say to to two Mcdonalds meals and there you go! You have saved enough money to buy birth control for 30 days!




Why should I pay fro an old person who is 25 times more likely to die???
How far do you want to parse it up?
I answered this many times. This issue isn't individuals and insurance companies though.

It is Employer, Employee, Insurance company which changes the dynamic of who is
ruling who.
edit on 4-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I was thinking about the birth control issue and the financial mess our country is in and and I realized what needs to be done. Our Government needs to step back in time, no no not a time machine, but take a look a at what changed to lead us to this point.

It appears fairly clear when I look back over the span of my lifetime.

Going back a bit in time..after the Great Depression the Government instituted regulations on Corporations and Financial institutions when they recognized that was where major issues were, you can liken it to runaway corporate greed and incomes of the average citizen that couldn't keep up, after this our country recovered from the disaster. Those regulations remained in place for the most part until if I recall correctly President Nixon's administration at which point the Government bit by bit started to remove those regulations and I believe for the most part they have all the last of them were removed between the era's of G Bush Senior and now, in addition to the deregulation once the technology industry started to take off, corporations started outsourcing jobs to foreign countries to take advantage of cheap labor .

Our income's have has not kept up with the cost of living, And our banking industry deregularization got greedy and blew up.

My father was able to support a family of 6 as a blue collar worker without even a high school diploma we had a house, a nice yard, big garden. That is an impossibility now.

We need to go backwards to go forwards.

Where this fits in with the OP is realizing that in 1979 (I was 19) I decided to go on the pill but didn't have a Dr and didn't have insurance but at that time there were "free clinics" for womens issues that charged on a sliding scale based on your income. they supplied birth control pills from the office, and they required you have a normal female exam prior to receiving birth control pills. I don't think clinic's like that exist any more.

Maybe this issue would work better if they were to bring "Free clinics" back.
edit on 3/4/12 by Pixiefyre because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
This thread is typical of the argument at large... it's being held by mostly men who have very little idea of the actual issues. In that way I'm no different, I suppose, but I've at least attempted to get a woman's perspective before I formed an opinion. I discussed this with my wife, sister in law, secretary, and my step daughter, and I found that no surprise, women take birth control for a variety of reasons, and not simply to prevent pregnancy.
Thus, to call a woman a slut simply because she uses birth control is INSANELY inappropriate. Most women take birth control to control and regulate their menstruation cycles, something we men know nothing about, and have no business trying to regulate. The issue at hand is whether or not religious institutions should have the right to impose their religious views on their employees to the extent that they can prevent them from taking certain medications, because that is what birth control is, a medication. That is the truth of the matter, and reducing the issue to fornication is ridiculous. Ridiculous, but typical of the right wing. I'm a life long Republican, but I'm ashamed of the last few years of my party. We went from the party of intellectuals and middle class small business owners, to the party that is afraid of women and minorities, and wants to impose their religion on the world at large. I hopeful that getting our asses handed to us in this next election cycle will shake up the party and we can go from being the party of bigoted pigs like Rush Limbaugh and go back to being the Party of intellectuals like William F. Buckley. Fingers crossed.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta
Someone else's sexual activity is not your realm to dictate,

The Catholic Church is not dictating the sexual activity of it's employees. But you sure do want to dictate the beliefs of the Catholic Church. THEY aren't the ones interfering in others lives or interfering with others Constitutional rights. But you are.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr3dboot
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Just for the sake of argument, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be required to fund birth control for anyone?
It's a personal choice to use, therefore an individual should have no issues paying for it on their own right?


Taking birth control is a necessity for most women like myself. Birth control isn't JUST used to prevent pregnancy. It's used as a hormone regulator, helps with severe menstrual cramps, ovarian cysts, endometriosis, acne, and various other things.
Birth Control, for most, is not a personal choice.
Birth control =/= the same thing as a condom.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join