Forcing People to Pay for The Contraception and Abortion of Women is a Right for Women?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


It should be available for those who can't afford it.Kinda like flu shots.

Make it Volintary.

I take the "strong" pill, without sugar pills. more Progesterone and Estrogen than the standard pill, as i have a slight hormone imbalance. Without this, i get very aggressive, moody, depressed.

I'm also active in a relationship, and i would personaly rather commit suicide than get pregnant and have a child.


I have to pay $80 every 2.5 months, to see the doctor, to get another perscription for the same thing. Yep, $80 to walk in and say "more pills please!". Then another $30 for the box itself. They DO NOT stock packs without the sugar pills. Even tho its avaliable to be orderd from the manufacturer, they will not order it in. I've tried several different chemists - as 3 full months of the bill , rather than a box of 3x 3 week strips would help save some cash.


Why do i need to keep going in there? The doctor is not monitoring how my hormones are going, or asking if im still active in my relationship to require the contraceptive pill.



I AM PAYING FOR THEIR PERMISSION TO HAVE THIS PILL.


It all boils down to money.

I'd take enough boxes to last me an entire year, free of charge, if it was offerd to me in a heartbeat.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

I do think contraceptives should be over the counter instead of requiring a prescription but right now it’s not.

As a medical student, I dont think that would be good. There is a reason why they are on prescription - contraceptives can be dangerous for people who have increased blood clotting. Your doctor should always check for blood clotting problems in your medical history before prescribing them.

I didn’t know that but I came across this article while searching to see if it has ever been proposed. You should have a glance at it.jezebel.com...

Seeing as how women have to see a doctor for them to be prescribed it seems even more important that they be covered under all health plans.

Here is another study on it.www.accp.com...

There are many countries that offer over the counter emergency contraceptives i.e. morning after pills. Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland with some restrictions, France and many other countries. I provided a link below.en.wikipedia.org...

The following link shows the countries that currently offer over the counter contraceptives. I do believe what you are saying however I think that it could be done based on other countries models affectively and safe.ocsotc.org...

By looking at that map it seems the US is in the minority with this issue.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

After reading your replies to your OP, you might want to consider finding an unclaimed island to go live on. Life isn't fair and our country is a mess...you are wasting time debating and whining.

Originally posted by Hope4peace
After reading your replies to your OP, you might want to consider finding an unclaimed island to go live on. Life isn't fair and our country is a mess...you are wasting time debating and whining.

Really? So because I don't want to be forced to pay for the abortion of those women who want abortion I must go to an island?... That isn't how this United States works, well it is now that leftwingers have one of theirs in power...

Some people are claiming that "it is in the best interest of everyone to pay for those women who want abortions, and their contraceptives, otherwise there will be many kids in the streets, blah, blah, blah", but you know what?... Using your logic we can aso say: Well, you need to provide me, and everyone else with free housing otherwise millions of us will be in the streets, blah, blah, blah"...

You also need to provide me and everyone else with a car, more so teenagers, otherwise we will be clogging the public transportation system and teenagers will be spraying graffitti all over public transportation which cost us money"...

Is it not the RESPONSIBILITY of ANYONE to pay for the abortion of a woman we don't know... If people want to pay VOLUNTARILY that's another story.

You might want to call me "selfish" all you want, but you don't know jack about me and I have probably done more things to help poor people than many of you, who keep bashing me for wanting FREEDOM, have. I just have been doing it VOLUNTARILY, without being FORCED to do it...

I am not DEMANDING for abortion to be banned, which is just another red herring from those who haven't taken the time to read my responses. It ISN'T the right of ANY woman to demand for her contraceptives, and her abortions to be paid by everyone else...

How about this. Instead of FORCING EVERYONE ELSE, why don't you DEMAND to pass a law that FORCES the MAN/MALE TEENAGER, and his family, to pay for abortion and the contraceptives of the woman/child he got pregnant?....

reply to post by 3chainz


That man has no idea of what he talks about, the United States has been giving the MOST aid to poor countries than any other country. Not only that but INDIVIDUALS, in the United States, FROM THEIR OWN FREE CHOICE have been giving the most aid to third world countries...

Fast Facts
1.The US was the leading donor of official humanitarian aid in 2010
2.The US’s official development assistance (ODA) was equal to 0.2% of The US’s gross national income (GNI) in 2010
3.GNI rank in 2010: 1 of 215
4.91.5% of the US’s official humanitarian aid was spent in fragile states in 2010
5.47% of the US’s official humanitarian aid was spent in countries classified as long term recipients of humanitarian aid in 2010
...

www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org...

BTW, Chomsky obviously doesn't understand that much of the aid we sent to third world countries is being controlled by warlords in Africa, and other countries, and these warlords use this aid to exert control over the people in their countries... MANY poor people in third world countries are not recieving the aid they need because WARLORDS are controlling the food supplies... This is a KNOWN fact, yet NO ONE is demanding for the UN to send troops and kill these warlods and their men...

Food aid shipments eaten up by Afghanistan's black market / Warlords intercepting deliveries

Andrew Bushell, Chronicle Foreign Service

Published 4:00 a.m., Sunday, January 13, 2002

2002-01-13 04:00:00 PDT Jalalabad, Afghanistan -- While two machine-gun-toting guards fidget with their weapons outside a warehouse entrance, 50 barefoot laborers, their faces slick with sweat, unload trucks filled with stolen United Nations grain.

Inside the downtown building, other workers open the blue and white bags and then repackage them in plain burlap sacks for sale in city bazaars. Mohammed Yousaf, the warehouse owner and wheat dealer, directs the operation from a drafty second floor office.

"I can't make any money buying wheat . . . I have to pay the NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) to get it for me," he said.

Until now, some 1,750 metric tons of wheat had been hauled daily from Pakistan to Jalalabad, a way station for hundreds of trucks loaded with food destined for other hard hit regions of the country.

Fewer than half arrive at their final destination with more than 60 percent of their original cargo, according to interviews with dozens of drivers. At the same time, there is so much stolen wheat in the Jalalabad markets that prices have dropped by 40 percent.
...

www.sfgate.com...

It hasn't happened just in Afghanistan, it happens all over the world.

If you want to know what really has been happening to all the aid being sent to for example Africa, you should read the following article in it's entirety.

James Peron

The Sorry Record of Foreign Aid in Africa

African Governments Are Destroying Their Countries with Aid from the West

...
In South Africa over $2 million donated by the European Union was used to stage an “AIDS awareness” play, Sarafina II. While the funds provided a luxury bus for cast and crew, they did little to educate the public about AIDS. AIDS experts condemned the play as a waste of money—it consumed 20 percent of South Africa’s entire AIDS budget—and said it contained inaccurate information as well. A heavily promoted showing of the play in Soweto was attended by fewer than 100 people. The play was pulled but the funds were never recouped. The EU insists that none of its funds were used on the project, but then-Minister of Health Nkosazama Zuma disputes that.6

Debacles such as these are almost benign. But foreign aid is also being used in patently destructive, and sometimes genocidal, ways. The Marxist dictatorship of Ethiopia’s Mengistu Haile Mariam was a major recipient of donor funds, a portion of which was used to forcibly resettle large segments of the population. One Ethiopian official said: “It is our duty to move the peasants if they are too stupid to move by themselves.”7 Donor funds, earmarked for famine relief, were instead used to buy trucks for the resettlement scheme. Relief aid was also intentionally kept away from some of the most severely affected areas because it suited Mengistu’s regime to starve its opponents. Relief ships were held for ransom and charged $50.50 per ton for permission to unload their aid, some of which was confiscated to feed the army. The New York Times reported that aid officials believed that Mengistu’s regime sold some of the food aid on the world market to finance the purchase of arms.8
...

www.thefreemanonline.org...

Heck, even so called "freedom fighters" have been raping women, and babies...

Congo rebels 'raped women and babies near UN base'

US aid worker and doctor say Rwandan and Congolese fighters attacked up to 200 people over four days


David Smith, Africa correspondent

The Guardian, Tuesday 24 August 2010 04.53 EDT

Nearly 200 women and four baby boys were gang-raped by Rwandan and Congolese rebels in a brazen attack near a UN peacekeepers' base, aid workers have reported.

Victims described four days of sexual violence that was unusually vicious even by the standards of eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, notorious for the use of rape as a weapon of war.

The impunity of the assault is likely to refocus attention on the effectiveness of the world's biggest UN peacekeeping mission, which has been strongly criticised by human rights groups. Survivors said their attackers were Hutu insurgents of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), which includes perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide who fled across the border to Congo in 1994. The Rwandans were apparently accompanied by local Mai-Mai militiamen.
...

www.guardian.co.uk...

Instead of having UN troops go after the warlords and their men, they are stationed in third world countries without confronting these warlords, and many of these same UN troops are raping women, children, and even men, as well as attacking the poor people themselves...

World Briefing | Africa

U.N. Cites Congo Officers in Rape Inquiry

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: July 22, 2011

KINSHASA, Democratic Republic of Congo (AP) — The United Nations on Friday named two Congolese Army colonels who appear to be blocking an investigation of soldiers accused of raping at least 47 women in eastern Congo, and said that if the attackers were not identified, the officers themselves should stand trial for the crimes committed by the troopers under their command.
...

www.nytimes.com...

U.N. Haiti peacekeepers face outcry over alleged rape


First Posted: 09/05/11 11:48 AM ET Updated: 11/05/11 06:12 AM ET

By Joseph Guyler Delva

PORT-AU-PRINCE (Reuters) - The U.N. mission in Haiti faced public anger on Monday over allegations that Uruguayan U.N. troops raped an 18-year-old local man, in the latest incident to threaten the reputation of U.N. peacekeepers in the poor Caribbean state.

Outrage in the earthquake-ravaged nation has been rising over a video shot by a cellphone camera and circulating on the Internet that shows laughing Uruguayan marines pinning the young Haitian face down on a mattress and apparently assaulting him sexually in a southern town.
...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

These are not the only cases. Do yourself a search using google and searching for "UN troops rape", you will find even videos of UN peacekeeper troops who have been caught raping women, children and even men...

But of course, first how is the UN going to fight the "freedom fighters" and war-leders in third world countries who are raping women, children and men, and even using aid we send to third world countries, when many UN PEACEKEEPER troops are raping women, children and even men themselves?...

Not to mention the "international" cry from leftwingers about "LET'S SPREAD PEACE AND LOVE AND NOT WAR"...

Instead you all seem to agree with having FORCED sterilizations in third world countries, instead of going after the rapers, and abusers of poor people...

Instead you all seem to want to FORCE everyone to pay for the MURDER of the innocent lives of human fetus/babies...

Not only that, but you all seem to want to compare the life of an INNOCENT fetus/baby with thelife of murderers, and rapists...

I am not talking about the FEW of you who do claim that you want rapers to pay for their crimes, I am talking in general, what the mayority of leftwingers around the world want.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

And as I said before, it is a lie that they are now claiming that they "only" want to do this for disabled or malformed babies, which is still morally wrong. But in fact they want to make it legal so taht parents can kill their newborn babies even if he/she has no health problems or is not disabled...

The following is directly from the paper wich is found in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Alberto Giubilini1,2,
Francesca Minerva3

+ Author Affiliations

1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy


2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; [email protected]

Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.

Received 25 November 2011
Revised 26 January 2012
Accepted 27 January 2012
Published Online First 23 February 2012


Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
...

jme.bmj.com...

As a general rule leftwingers have been demanding to end the death penalty for criminals who have committed horrendous crimes, you want to FORCE people to pay for the abortion of women, many of whom haven't even been raped but were IRRESPONSIBLE, and now there are leftwingers who even want it to make it legal to murder not only human fetus, and babies inside women's woomb, but even babies who have been born, and this is called "normal in a LIBERAL society"...

Let's read that part again, and see if it hits a cord with at least a few of those who think EVERYONE should be FORCED to pay for the abortions of women, and their contraceptives...

...
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


WOW!

That's pretty impressive.

We can do all that, and yet we can't provide birth control to our own citizens, through their employment health insurance package, that covers preventative care and birth control without you screaming about "them" taking away YOUR personal rights!

Hmm.

Viagra is not contraception. A $3 box of condoms is contraception.

Lets out this into prospective....Obama insists on spending trillions..(thats this many 0s x,000,000,000,000) for a $3 box of condoms... or what $30 for a monthly pill ??

If anyone's numbers don't add up..it is Barry's

reply to post by windword


wow, you are still so delluded, and your reading comprehension is obviously still lacking...

How about instead of DEMANDING for everyone to pay for the contraceptives and abortions of other women, instead they pay it themselves since it is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY?... As well as the RESPONSIBILITY of the man/teenager who got that girl/woman pregnant...

But of course, you know nothing about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY right?... and obviously you know less about INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM...

BTW, how would you pay about all the things I mentioned?... Are you that dellusional that you believe that money grows on trees?...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


The requisite for personal responsibility is met when the individual purchases a health insurance package or is offered an insurance benefit package through their employers insurance. Birth control is a preventative measure, that is now required to be part of that package.

I know, you still don't understand the "pool" concept of insurance. You know, your homeowners insurance, your auto insurance and your health insurance is paying for the results of Hurricane Sandy. How rude for those who live on the west coast!

reply to post by windword


You still don't understand the difference between how insurance works. If you didn't pay for insurance protecting your house you think the insurance would pay to fix your house?...

Only those who pay for insurance are protected by it...

That first, second, you want to FORCE others to pay for what MILLIONS of people see as MURDERING BABIES/HUMAN FETUS...

Those are MILLIONS of people who do not agree with MURDERING BABIES/HUMAN FETUS, yet people like you, out of your blind, self righteous, delluded mind want to FORCE those millions of people to pay for something that they are morally against...

Third, even contraceptives should be THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH PERSON WHO USES THEM...

It shouldn't be the responsibility of someone else to pay for your contraceptive...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


just like it isn't any body's responsibility to pay for someone's tumor to be removed, or their insulin if they are diabetic, or for thier kid's runny nose just so they can have peace of mind!!!
and we seem to have to do those things, even when they don't pay for their own insurance.....
hmmmm!!!!!


most of us here posting, I would wager, can work all their lives, and not pay enough in taxes to buy one, not even one, of those bombs that are being dropped on other countries in our names....killing, murdering innocent people....some of us seem to have some moral issues with that one also!!!

and here you are, complaining that the gov't has passed a law requiring that insurance companies include birth control coverage as a preventive medicine and cover it free.....
'that somehow, they are forcing YOU to pay for someone's birth control.....when they were RESPONSIBLE enough to get and hold a job that provided a health insurance plan that covered insurance.... your argument doesn't add up!!!
do you have a gripe that my insurance, that me and my boss pay for, provides coverage for birth control???
if not, why??? it is pooling money from people who may have strong believes about birth control with mine, and paying for the birth control!!!
do you have a gribe about the gov't taking you money from you and pooling it with others to provide a poor person a home, some food?? why not, they should be responsible for thier own care, right???


the constitiutional protections are more for individuals than they are institutions. so, if, like you claim, this law is violating the rights of religious institutions by requiring that their healthcare to cover birth control....
why isn't the health insurance companies violating the same law when they include it the bulk packages that they peddle to the business...aren't they in essence violating the same protection, not to mention the blood transfusions and the johava witnesses???
does any of us really have much say as to what is and isn't covered in our insurance policies, considering just how much it costs to obtain them, and well, most of us feel lucky if we even have one???
seems to me, we all seem to have to grin and bear it and fork over money for taxes we don'jt believe in and services that really don't fit our needs too well....
I am all for protecting religious rights, but I am not for holding their rights as sacred above all others!!
if everyone else has to accept those little inconveniences that life throws at us, then well, they shouldn't be held above us!!

if birth control shouldn't be covered in insurance policies that we pay money for on religious grounds, then well, why in god's name is any one cent of my money being used to build bombs to drop on innocent women and children in third world countries by our gov't???

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You are so dense and obtuse!

You have already been shown evidence that abortion insurance is an additional rider, that can be purchased separately.

No one is forcing you to pay for abortions.

Why do you think that you have the moral high road? Your opinion is just that, opinion.

reply to post by dawnstar


"Preventive Medicine"... So "abortion" is a "preventive Medicine"?... Please don't talk about wars when you are okay completely with murdering innocent babies...

Every one of you who claims "it is the right of a woman to have people pay for their abortions/contraceptives" are devaluing human life...

Not to mention that you don't give a crap about other people's opinions, moral values, and views...

You all have been so brainwashed that you can't see what's right in front of your noses,

Most of you even want to claim that having the death penalty for MURDERERS is the same as having abortions of innocent human fetus/babies...

You all, or most of you seem to think that this...



Is the same as this...



For those of you who do not know, the above picture is of Ted Bundy, he was one of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history...

That's how messed up most of you all are in the head...

Originally posted by timmhaines
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

It should be available for those who can't afford it.Kinda like flu shots.

I haven't read the entire thread.

But my 2 cents worth is this is appalling.

I am nearly deaf in one ear. I very much need a hearing aid. I can not afford one. Insurance doesn't pay for deaf people to have hearing aids. Yet I'm being made to pay for some whores extravaganza?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Most of you even want to claim that having the death penalty for MURDERERS is the same as having abortions of innocent human fetus/babies...

You all, or most of you seem to think that this...

Is the same as this...

For those of you who do not know, the above picture is of Ted Bundy, he was one of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history...

That's how messed up most of you all are in the head...

edit on 3-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

I would have happily paid for Ted Bundy's mother to have gotten an abortion. Think of all the lives that would have been saved....

Originally posted by kaylaluv

I would have happily paid for Ted Bundy's mother to have gotten an abortion. Think of all the lives that would have been saved....

Except that MOST babies/human fetus, and most probably a mayority will not become a Ted Bundy...

WOW, seriously the excuses you people make are just ridiculous...

You can't know what a baby/fetus will become...

Even undergoing the WORST circumstances, and having the worse experiences throughout their childhood, and adulthood many, if not a mayority of people become decent, and good...

Perhaps you also want a "pre-crime division" and to make it legal to incarcerate people even if they haven't committed any crimes, or even if there is no proof of any sort of crime, but rather for what people's views, and opinions MIGHT make those people some sort of criminals, even POLITICAL criminals, like your messiah Obama wants to make legal huh, if he hasn't already?...

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by timmhaines
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

It should be available for those who can't afford it.Kinda like flu shots.

I haven't read the entire thread.

But my 2 cents worth is this is appalling.

I am nearly deaf in one ear. I very much need a hearing aid. I can not afford one. Insurance doesn't pay for deaf people to have hearing aids. Yet I'm being made to pay for some whores extravaganza?

I may be wrong but your condition may be considered as preexisting with the affordable healthcare act which once it goes into effect should cover your hearing aids.

Aside from that do you really consider all women that use contraceptives to be whores?