The Birth Control Controversy

Originally posted by neo96
This is what i call a win win topic.

USE Fascist means to take my money from me to enrich those Big Pharma Coporations

I think calling women who use contraception sluts is a bigger win, I think you should
make that the basis of the next election, please.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Muttley2012

 

If a mod needs to remove this, then fine. But, I can only reply...

Please....

This comes down to individual rights, a person can decide to use birth control or not.
If they have religious reasons not to, they won't... I really can hardly believe you are
trying to frame it this way.

It does come down to individual rights. If a person chooses to use birth control, it's their personal choice. But as the saying goes, "the right to swing your fist ends at the other man's nose." When a woman's right to procreate or not encroaches on my right to not have to pay for someone's else's decisions, then who gets to exercise their respective right? Liberals and progressives are saying her right is paramount. Conservatives and libertarians say my right is paramount. The correct way to address it is that she practices birth control on her own dime, and the citizenry gets to keep their wages.

That is fair and equitable.

/TOA

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Muttley2012

 

If a mod needs to remove this, then fine. But, I can only reply...

Please....

This comes down to individual rights, a person can decide to use birth control or not.
If they have religious reasons not to, they won't... I really can hardly believe you are
trying to frame it this way.

It does come down to individual rights. If a person chooses to use birth control, it's their personal choice. But as the saying goes, "the right to swing your fist ends at the other man's nose." When a woman's right to procreate or not encroaches on my right to not have to pay for someone's else's decisions, then who gets to exercise their respective right? Liberals and progressives are saying her right is paramount. Conservatives and libertarians say my right is paramount. The correct way to address it is that she practices birth control on her own dime, and the citizenry gets to keep their wages.

That is fair and equitable.

/TOA

I also know you can go and get a prescription for erectile disfunction pills, why
should someone have to pay for your hard on? As it is, the company she works
for does not have to pay for it if they disagree on religious grounds, so what now?

reply to post by Ahabstar


Which is awesome, if you subscribe to that kind of thing, but for the rest of us -- who don't care a whit for Jesus or their silly religion -- it means nada.

Which is what it really boils down to. Don't like birth control or abortion? Don't get one. YOU are the only person you will EVER be allowed to control.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Muttley2012

 

If a mod needs to remove this, then fine. But, I can only reply...

Please....

This comes down to individual rights, a person can decide to use birth control or not.
If they have religious reasons not to, they won't... I really can hardly believe you are
trying to frame it this way.

It does come down to individual rights. If a person chooses to use birth control, it's their personal choice. But as the saying goes, "the right to swing your fist ends at the other man's nose." When a woman's right to procreate or not encroaches on my right to not have to pay for someone's else's decisions, then who gets to exercise their respective right? Liberals and progressives are saying her right is paramount. Conservatives and libertarians say my right is paramount. The correct way to address it is that she practices birth control on her own dime, and the citizenry gets to keep their wages.

That is fair and equitable.

/TOA

I also know you can go and get a prescription for erectile disfunction pills, why
should someone have to pay for your hard on? As it is, the company she works
for does not have to pay for it if they disagree on religious grounds, so what now?

Not sure what it has to do with what I wrote, but nobody but the person who wants an erection should have to pay for it. Why anyone would think otherwise is completely beyond me. But I'm glad you agree that a person's insurance and use of its services is their own responsibility, not someone else's.

/TOA

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

The point is that people were having heart attacks long before the insurance industry saturated the health care industry. You want to pretend that health care is not more expensive today because of insurance schemes. All this self serving pretense of yours is unseemly, particularly because you so smugly present yourself as some kind of caring individual, but your posts reveal a callous self involved boy who has no regard for truth.

You are batting 100% tonight, you have officially twisted every single idea I have
presented. I really get nothing out of trying to win arguments with lying because that
is simply not rewarding for me, you should try it sometime. Below are my words from
a previous page which completely contradict your second sentence. Why do you
insist upon lying about my positions repeatedly and systematically?

I am not saying healthcare is not more expensive, I am saying $20,000 in an ICU as opposed
to $30,000, would not make a huge difference for many people who simply can't afford to pay
that kind of money when the unforeseen need arises.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You ignore that the majority of people did not survive heart attacks 100 years ago.
You also ignore that the methods to save people are much more labor intensive and
complex these days. A single diagnostic machine can cost Millions of dollars.

Third request (yawn) can you afford a heart attack if you had one tonight, do you
have the cash on hand to pay for it?

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Muttley2012

 

If a mod needs to remove this, then fine. But, I can only reply...

Please....

This comes down to individual rights, a person can decide to use birth control or not.
If they have religious reasons not to, they won't... I really can hardly believe you are
trying to frame it this way.

It does come down to individual rights. If a person chooses to use birth control, it's their personal choice. But as the saying goes, "the right to swing your fist ends at the other man's nose." When a woman's right to procreate or not encroaches on my right to not have to pay for someone's else's decisions, then who gets to exercise their respective right? Liberals and progressives are saying her right is paramount. Conservatives and libertarians say my right is paramount. The correct way to address it is that she practices birth control on her own dime, and the citizenry gets to keep their wages.

That is fair and equitable.

/TOA

I also know you can go and get a prescription for erectile disfunction pills, why
should someone have to pay for your hard on? As it is, the company she works
for does not have to pay for it if they disagree on religious grounds, so what now?

Not sure what it has to do with what I wrote, but nobody but the person who wants an erection should have to pay for it. Why anyone would think otherwise is completely beyond me. But I'm glad you agree that a person's insurance and use of its services is their own responsibility, not someone else's.

/TOA

Because the majority of insurance plans cover those types of treatment. It is cogent because
both ED pills and Contraception relate to human reproduction. Most plans, including the catholic
institutional plan, from my old place of employment, will pay for a hard on.

Just a reminder...

...that personal insults against your fellow ATSers will not be tolerated. Stick to the topic at hand and refrain from attacking one another on a personal level. Adherence to this simple request is expected.

No exceptions.

Consider this fair warning.


ETA: ...and is it really too much to ask that everyone remain on topic? Pretty please with sugar on top.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by neo96
This is what i call a win win topic.

USE Fascist means to take my money from me to enrich those Big Pharma Coporations

I think calling women who use contraception sluts is a bigger win, I think you should
make that the basis of the next election, please.

So lets try this agian

No one has any problems with women who use contraception THE PROBLEM IS having someone else pay for it.

and Really now i hear worse in rap and comments made by leftists llke Bill Maher.

They want it they pay for and if they cant pay for there is planned parenthood where tax dollars ALREADY GO.

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by neo96
This is what i call a win win topic.

USE Fascist means to take my money from me to enrich those Big Pharma Coporations

I think calling women who use contraception sluts is a bigger win, I think you should
make that the basis of the next election, please.

So lets try this agian

No one has any problems with women who use contraception THE PROBLEM IS having someone else pay for it.

and who pays for it? Companies can opt out, now what Neo?

reply to post by mastahunta


Heres a whacky idea about about the 2 people who do the deed or don't do the deed

a 2 dollar condom or the cost of zero.

or do you just want to see those big pharma corporations rake in billions more in a government mandate which we have seen time and time agian in the insurance industry.

reply to post by mastahunta

I also know you can go and get a prescription for erectile disfunction pills, why should someone have to pay for your hard on? As it is, the company she works for does not have to pay for it if they disagree on religious grounds, so what now?

That is because erectile disfunction is a pre-existing condition, where the pill and other contraceptives do not treat one. Hence why insurance companies as a rule don't cover contraceptives, they don't treat anything usually. However the pill is sometimes used to treat hormone issues where it actually is used as a treatment!

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by mastahunta

 

I also know you can go and get a prescription for erectile disfunction pills, why should someone have to pay for your hard on? As it is, the company she works for does not have to pay for it if they disagree on religious grounds, so what now?

That is because erectile disfunction is a pre-existing condition, where the pill and other contraceptives do not treat one. Hence why insurance companies as a rule don't cover contraceptives, they don't treat anything usually. However the pill is sometimes used to treat hormone issues where it actually is used as a treatment!

They Prevent, and preventative medicine is administered all the time. Man can get their tubes
tied which is not a treatment, insurance typically covers that too.

reply to post by mastahunta


There is no controversy, this is a case of wagging the dog...

Hmmm, economy sucks, gas prices are high and getting higher, unemployment is still high President's ratings are low and tensions in the middle east are at a boil. How do we get Americans talking about something else? Women's reproductive rights!

Now, no one is worried about the economy, gas prices, unemployment or the middle east. It's all about a poor co-ed who can't afford birth control and who has been labeled a "slut" by a no longer relevant radio personality. The Dems are in control and rolling.

The Dems know that the Republicans are controlled by the bible belt and they are using that to their advantage. I'll call it now, HUGE sweeping win by the Dems come November. They don't need the Occupy Movement now, not with this poor co-ed as their poster child.

Originally posted by mastahunta
Man can get their tubes tied

That one statement explains a whole lot...

reply to post by mastahunta


What do contraceptives prevent? Pregnancy is not a medical problem! You really think that it's such a great idea to mandate their coverage? The whole thing had been a crock of you know what. That woman who spoke goes to a school that charges how much in tuition? And she has the gall to speak for all woman needing birth control? That school charges more in tuition than most people make in a year! Priorities seem a bit skewed!

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by mastahunta
Man can get their tubes tied

That one statement explains a whole lot...

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

Oh sorry, I missed the "E" and I did not use the word Vasectomy.All my point are rendered
useless due to my speedy reply Mr. Ad Hom