Just How Truly ‘Pro-Choice’ Is The Democratic Party?

reply to post by Honor93
As health insurance costs rise, the employers are forced to pass those costs on to the consumer, or lay off employees.
The more things that people demand the insurers pay for, the higher the costs for everyone.

reply to post by butcherguy
i won't argue this point because it's true.

however, do notice that even you said ...

As health insurance costs rise

that ^^^ and healthcare costs are two totally different fields of gameplay.

and along the lines of the topic, knowing the Democrats voted for the abomination known as PPACA (Obamacare), their premise of pro-choice falters more with every vote.

The more things that people demand the insurers pay for, the higher the costs for everyone.

this is where we would disagree.
IF health insurance is to be responsible for the payment of healthcare, then logically, no manner or method of healthcare should need to be demanded by the insured.

health insurance costs should be falling (according to the pooling premise) not increasing.
healthcare costs are inflated because health insurance demands it, not the patients.

if and when ppl begin to understand that it is insurance (both health and malpractice) that directly inflate care costs, then and only then will they begin to benefit from healthcare and be less wounded by health insurance.

Originally posted by butcherguy
The thread is about pro choice people really being against choice. You can read the thread, you will figure it out. The point I am making, is that by limiting my menu choices, the nanny staters are limiting my freedom.
Believe it or not.... That is on topic.

Maybe you need to actually read what I replied to. I know what the thread is about. That does not make the lie I responded to true. Sorry if that is upsetting for you. Reality is as it is.

More importantly, why are you so dependent on others anyway? Be your own man and get your own soda. I do not see how your choice is being limited when I can sit here drinking pop and eating trans fats all day long.

And most importantly, none of that makes the claim that these things have been banned in NYC true. It is just not true and after it was stated, I pointed out it was not true. If you just want to move on to another argument, go for it. Do not try to shoehorn that in here and make it look like I was wrong for correcting a lie that was a lie.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


You really have no idea what Fluke was talking about do you? You seem to have gotten all your information from the right wing media because none of what you say regarding her is representative of the truth. Maybe being less ignorant about things you opine so vociferously about would do this conversation a little good. I will give you some time to catch up.

reply to post by Honor93

IF health insurance is to be responsible for the payment of healthcare, then logically, no manner or method of healthcare should need to be demanded by the insured.

Oh, you are right.
I remember having healthcare insurance that my employer paid for (meaning that I didn't have to pay a portion of the premium) with no office visit co-pays or deductibles, and I never received a bill from a healthcare provider for anything. It was very nice, but those days are gone.
The more we demand now, the more we must pay. That is how it works now. October is contract renewal time, so we are weighing our options again where I work to see what we are going to go without this time, and pay more for.

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by butcherguy
The thread is about pro choice people really being against choice. You can read the thread, you will figure it out. The point I am making, is that by limiting my menu choices, the nanny staters are limiting my freedom.
Believe it or not.... That is on topic.

Maybe you need to actually read what I replied to. I know what the thread is about. That does not make the lie I responded to true. Sorry if that is upsetting for you. Reality is as it is.

More importantly, why are you so dependent on others anyway? Be your own man and get your own soda. I do not see how your choice is being limited when I can sit here drinking pop and eating trans fats all day long.

And most importantly, none of that makes the claim that these things have been banned in NYC true. It is just not true and after it was stated, I pointed out it was not true. If you just want to move on to another argument, go for it. Do not try to shoehorn that in here and make it look like I was wrong for correcting a lie that was a lie.

This is the second time that you have responded to the same post, which is a day old.
Just in case you didn't get it yet, I have dropped it.

Originally posted by ideasarebulletproof


Actually it has probably happened a lot more than you think.

Actually, I doubt that very highly. For one thing, you do not even have one example. For another thing, you have no idea how often I think it happens.
I am not going to concede any argument because of what you think "probably" is. Facts do not work that way.

The old farce that men can not be raped is BS. An erection is a physical reaction to outside stimuli.

So you get erect when a woman touches you? An ugly woman? A man? A dog? Furniture?
Anything that touches you gets you hard does it? I have never met a man that worked that way in my life.

What, you think girls have never taken advantage of a drunk guy? Or drugged a man? The reason you don't hear about these cases very often is because men are brainwashed from childhood to "be a man" and not admit their feelings, and not to appear weak. Being raped by a woman is seen as a weakness.

Men who have been drugged to the point of being raped by a woman can get hard and ejaculate? Really? Oh you are going to have to educate me on this, and with facts.

Then see if you can spot the difference between rape, and taking advantage of someone. There is a difference.

Have one single case for me? No? OK, moving on then.

Women on the other hand have been brainwashed since childhood that they can do no wrong. Get drunk and sleep with a guy (just as drunk as you) and regret it in the morning? It's OK! Just say he raped you! You'll get sympathy from everyone, and the unfortunate guy who just thought it was an innocent hook up, will go to jail and be branded a sex offender for the rest of his life! Win win for you!

I guess that is what he gets for sleeping with a strange woman who cannot be trusted. If he keeps his pants on, that is not a problem. Why is it a womans fault if you both get drunk and you impregnate her? You did say "just as drunk as you." So two drunk people have sex and you blame the woman if she gets pregnant?

Do you know how women become pregnant? There is nothing they can do on their own to make that happen. A man needs to actually take an active role. If that bothers you, take it up with nature.

But of course, men are the only ones who can force sex on an other person because they are mindless penises who only want to stick it in something.

Men are the only ones that can impregnate anyone against their women. Women do not have that power.

Meanwhile women are innocent little princess being raped left and right in the streets by these animals.

Not sure where you get any of that from but if you want to tell me that women rape men and force them to pay for their babies, you are going to have to back that up.

Originally posted by Honor93
apparently, you bought it hook, line and sinker because SF isn't the only one who pays for her employer provided insurance.

You are not the only one that pays for anything anywhere.
Her insurance is not publicly funded and I do not believe any of you pay for her insurance.

and, since the employer covers a portion of the costs, you, me and the next guy, pays - whether she specifically asks us to or not.

No, you and I do not pay anything we do not choose to. When I buy almost anything, anywhere I am apparently paying for some old pervert's viagara then. Is that the point you are trying to make?

Originally posted by butcherguy
This is the second time that you have responded to the same post, which is a day old.
Just in case you didn't get it yet, I have dropped it.

Very good.
I replied to it twice. I am glad you can count. Had you been able to answer simple questions, a second attempt would not have been necessary.

Originally posted by wascurious
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

You really have no idea what Fluke was talking about do you? You seem to have gotten all your information from the right wing media because none of what you say regarding her is representative of the truth. Maybe being less ignorant about things you opine so vociferously about would do this conversation a little good. I will give you some time to catch up.

Perhaps it is you who needs to catch up if you only heard her at the DNC and not in her testimony before Congress. She did lump certain other female needs in with the contraception because that is the only way she can legitimize her demands.
Now if you truly feel you know more about her demands than I do, why don't you go ahead and explain it in detail. If I disagree, I will let you know. Let's hear it in your own words now.

Perhaps you could explain to me just what you think she was testifying before Congress for? If she and her friends in college didn't want insurance to cover the cost of their contraceptives, then what was the issue? In her own words she says she wants the contraceptives provided without co pays and without a deductible. In other words, she wants the insurance companies to cover the cost of contraceptives. Because the particular University in question is a Catholic Institution that views contraceptives as possible abortifacients, the school does not wish to have their insurance pay for drugs that can cause a miscarriage. It is a medical fact so don't bother trying to dismiss that claim.
She goes on in her testimony to talk about all the different women at the school who cannot afford to get prescriptions for their contraceptives without a co pay or without a waiver of deductions. Her testimony was clearly to get insurance companies to cover the cost for her and for countless others. She also wants to force private insurers to do as she wants them to do, and to have govt force a private insurer to cover this.
This is the crux of the matter.
Whatever her fluffy talk about other issues, her main point and her testimony is to get insurance companies to pay for contraception and to get govt to force private insurers to do this.
In the bigger picture, this is all taken into consideration with the bigger impact of the Affordable Health Care Act, because she wants to force insurers to do this because she believes it is a human right.
Further in her testimony she states that it is a lie that she cannot get her contraceptives any other way.

Boise, ID –Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest is offering free long-term contraception at its Boise and Twin Falls health centers. The average savings to the patient is $600 and the Long Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC) can last up to 12 years.

www.plannedparenthood.org...

So who is lying? Her or Boise Planned Parenthood?
She makes flagrantly volatile statements about people policing a woman's body. In her testimony she states how terrible it is for a religious institution to not pay for this. She also complains that women can get the contraceptives for ovarian cysts(which of course would be a treatment for a potentially serious condition a woman has no control over), but not for using it to avoid pregnancy. She says the insurance people "interrogate" women to find out how they are using contraceptives.
Now if you take this whole thing to it's logical conclusion, the obvious result would be that private insurers would be forced through bureacratic legislation to cover prescriptions for the contraceptives, and if this were taken to the full extent, it would mean that when the full devastation of Obamacare comes full circle and more and more people come under the jurisdiction of the federal exchange, taxpayers will indeed be paying for Sandra's contraceptives and others as well, as taxpayers have to subsidize the exchanges in order for them to get the low cost.

Truly this is about the Nanny State intervention in private insurers and is part and parcel of what the socialists intended all along with Obamacare.
Do you understand?


In addition, the Obama admin took the opportunity to make an all out attack against the Catholic institution, which he has done before. For them, it is a matter of controlling the evil Christian traditions, just like when he insisted on having the statues covered for his address.

reply to post by wascurious

Educate yourself.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.springerlink.com...

www.malesurvivor.org...

www.bmj.com...

Rape of men by women doesn't have to be vaginal penetration with the penis. It can be forced oral, anal, or digital sex i.e. fondling, groping.

When it comes to women, any sexual act that they did not consent to is considered rape. Why is this standard not the same for male rape victims?

And yes, an erection is an involuntary physical reaction.

I guess by your responses you are one of the many who think men are brainless raping machines who are incapable of being victims of anything.

That is the epitome of ignorance.

reply to post by wascurious


"No they do not. Men cannot be impregnated against their will. Women can. A biology teacher can help you from here."

So there have never been cases of women "accidentally" not taking their birth control?

Or "accidentally" poking holes in condoms?

www.dearcupid.org...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

thebritgirl.com...

Yeah. These poor innocent women...

reply to post by wascurious


To highlight the controversy, here is an article discussing the Obama admin's attacks on religious freedom, and of course, the fact that Sandra was invited to the DNC to speak shows that they are only too happy to continue this attack under the guise of feminine issues.
the-american-catholic.com... ork/

I am pretty sure you would not want to admit that relilgious freedom has anything to do with what the Obama admin is doing here, but if one takes into account Obama's insistance on covering religious statues, one simply cannot brush it off as accident.

Now here is her testimony before Congress. If you feel that I have insufficiently analyzed it for this forum, then you certainly may have a crack at it.

reply to post by wascurious


Here is another article for those who don't understand the issues.

www.christianpost.com...

reply to post by wascurious
ohhhh, i'd really enjoy you educating me on this difference you think exists.

Then see if you can spot the difference between rape, and taking advantage of someone. There is a difference.

remember now, you're speaking to someone with personal experience so do tell, what is this difference ??

are you really too lame to search that one on your own ??
it wasn't that difficult ... it would seem that 2 million isn't such a small number at all.

www.rainn.org...
Men
About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.

In 2003, 1 in every ten rape victims were male.
2.78 million men in the U.S. have been victims of sexual assault or rape.

ETA: given the above statistic, are you even aware that in 2003, more men [nearly 3 times as many] were raped/sexually assaulted than total abortions performed ??
need a reference ??

www.cdc.gov...
A total of 848,163 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2003 from 49 reporting areas, representing a 0.7% decline from the 854,122 legal induced abortions reported by 49 reporting areas for 2002.

so, which is a bigger dilemma ??
rape, abortion or the Pro-Choice stance that is anything but a choice?
care to interject a real argument or are straws all you can reach ??

reply to post by wascurious

never said i was
however, her insurance was RELIGIOUSLY funded and that does involve me and a whole bunch of others (known as taxpayers).

keep thinking it ... one day you'll realize the truth of the situation.
perhaps you don't pay because you don't earn, but hopefully, that will change too.
fyi, every payment you make toward taxation or health insurance pays for someone's viagra, yes it does.

reply to post by PvtHudson

S&F OP!

Isn’t it funny how they are for your “choice” to abort your pregnancy but you’re too stupid to make your own “choice” on smoking or drinking a Big Gulp?

He really screwed that one lady up on the union question (2:10)!

This just goes to show that the majority of these folks are Kool Aid drinkers who have never really examined the underlying flaw in their stance on certain issues. Maybe if they used their critical thinking skills rather than following the masses they’d have come up with more intelligent responses? Just saying!

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by wascurious

 

never said i was

however, her insurance was RELIGIOUSLY funded and that does involve me and a whole bunch of others (known as taxpayers).

keep thinking it ... one day you'll realize the truth of the situation.
perhaps you don't pay because you don't earn, but hopefully, that will change too.
fyi, every payment you make toward taxation or health insurance pays for someone's viagra, yes it does.

Sorry, you are still wrong. She was not even talking about birth control for herself. She was talking about a friend that needed to take it for the hormone therapy aspect of it. Who was her friend employed by again?

And yes, I know. But you seem ok with that for some reason.

Originally posted by ideasarebulletproof
reply to post by wascurious

 

"No they do not. Men cannot be impregnated against their will. Women can. A biology teacher can help you from here."

So there have never been cases of women "accidentally" not taking their birth control?

Or "accidentally" poking holes in condoms?

www.dearcupid.org...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

thebritgirl.com...

Yeah. These poor innocent women...

Yeah, in all those cases the men still willingly stuck their yahoo in the girls woohoo. What about biology are you missing here?

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by ideasarebulletproof
reply to post by wascurious

 

"No they do not. Men cannot be impregnated against their will. Women can. A biology teacher can help you from here."

So there have never been cases of women "accidentally" not taking their birth control?

Or "accidentally" poking holes in condoms?

www.dearcupid.org...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

thebritgirl.com...

Yeah. These poor innocent women...

Yeah, in all those cases the men still willingly stuck their yahoo in the girls woohoo. What about biology are you missing here?

WOW... You are ridiculous.

You are akin to the right wing saying women who wear short skirts deserve being raped for the way they dress.

Obviously your blind hatred of penises is clouding your higher cognitive abilities. Or perhaps, unfortunately, this is just how diminished it is at all times. If that indeed is the case, you have my sympathies.

But I do not have a fondness for talking to furniture, and this conversation has been equally stimulating.

Good day.