republican war on contraception

[Anonymous]

I just wish they would focus on drugs that affect men, since its the men arguing about it. They can make birth control optional when women have more choice about whether they have sex. In many relationships, women have only limited control of this.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I have in another forums, I have no idea why any health insurance should cover contraception or Viagra. I should not have to pay for someone else's sex life. Sorry.

No need to apologize; no one is seeking agreement from someone as unthinking as you.

Persuasive argument! So, should my health insurance cover my personal trainer? Why should I subsidize somebody's sex life? How are we going to control health care costs when life style choices become health care matters? How can we justify taking money from cancer victims or reducing doctor payments to cover the costs associated with contraception or Viagra?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I have in another forums, I have no idea why any health insurance should cover contraception or Viagra. I should not have to pay for someone else's sex life. Sorry.

Then look forward to paying for their kids' education, health care, incarceration....

Those deadbeats dont take/use their contraception as they are supposed to anyway. Whether we pay for their pill or whatever, we can still look forward to paying for their kids education, health care and incarceration.

The underlying attitudes and assumptions in the immediately above comments are pretty scarier. BTW. Did you know that all poor people take drugs, so we should be drug testing them before providing benefits? These attitudes and assumptions are as stupid as those being made by Governor Scott and the other morons on the right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I have in another forums, I have no idea why any health insurance should cover contraception or Viagra. I should not have to pay for someone else's sex life. Sorry.

No need to apologize; no one is seeking agreement from someone as unthinking as you.

Persuasive argument! So, should my health insurance cover my personal trainer? Why should I subsidize somebody's sex life? How are we going to control health care costs when life style choices become health care matters? How can we justify taking money from cancer victims or reducing doctor payments to cover the costs associated with contraception or Viagra?

Having babies is a lifestyle choice. You certainly don't want that de-funded. Why should the childless fund your procreation? Isn't it enough that they fund our kids' education? Must the birth be covered, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Dear Republicans,

You are being played like a violin. The Dems are teeing up contraception because they know that most Americans, including American Catholics, believe in it. This causes the pro-lifers to go apeshit, forcing the GOP to address the issue. And in an election where the frontrunner will do virtually anything to prove his conservative credentials, he will take the bait.

That in turn loses you a lot of votes. And in return it gains you nothing, because you already have the wackadoodle vote.

Wake up. All we need to do is get you riled up about birth control and immigration and everything else you hate, and we get another 4 years in office.

Wrong. This is not about actual contraception usage or access to it. This is about religious institutions being told by liberal extremists what they can or cannot do - a blatent attack on religious freedom in this country. If you think the GOP, conservatives, or even Catholics will see it any other way you are missing the boat. This will not play well for Obama. Moreover, this spokespersons are already stating that they're "looking for a way to find compromise" on this issue because his own democrats who actually supported Obamacare based on his representations in a Presidential Order that he would not touch the contraception issue are also giving him heat. Not good for him at all.

well I am catholic and I can say that my friends and I would disagree with your generalization about what Catholics will do.

Catholic archdiocese all over the country are going bankrupt as a result of child sex-abuse and coverup lawsuits. Look, inward, Catholic Church--you are no moral authority on sex or reproductive choices.

Signed,
A Catholic

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I have in another forums, I have no idea why any health insurance should cover contraception or Viagra. I should not have to pay for someone else's sex life. Sorry.

No need to apologize; no one is seeking agreement from someone as unthinking as you.

Persuasive argument! So, should my health insurance cover my personal trainer? Why should I subsidize somebody's sex life? How are we going to control health care costs when life style choices become health care matters? How can we justify taking money from cancer victims or reducing doctor payments to cover the costs associated with contraception or Viagra?

Others and I have addressed the thin argument repeatedly in the other threads. The "Sorry" PP (don't know if that's you), among others, refuses to deal with the obvious counterarguments. If you're sincerely interested in reasoned debate, you can go read it and get back to me, but I'm not going to write it up for the hypocritical drones to ignore once again.

As they say, "Sorry."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Dear Republicans,

You are being played like a violin. The Dems are teeing up contraception because they know that most Americans, including American Catholics, believe in it. This causes the pro-lifers to go apeshit, forcing the GOP to address the issue. And in an election where the frontrunner will do virtually anything to prove his conservative credentials, he will take the bait.

That in turn loses you a lot of votes. And in return it gains you nothing, because you already have the wackadoodle vote.

Wake up. All we need to do is get you riled up about birth control and immigration and everything else you hate, and we get another 4 years in office.

Wrong. This is not about actual contraception usage or access to it. This is about religious institutions being told by liberal extremists what they can or cannot do - a blatent attack on religious freedom in this country. If you think the GOP, conservatives, or even Catholics will see it any other way you are missing the boat. This will not play well for Obama. Moreover, this spokespersons are already stating that they're "looking for a way to find compromise" on this issue because his own democrats who actually supported Obamacare based on his representations in a Presidential Order that he would not touch the contraception issue are also giving him heat. Not good for him at all.

well I am catholic and I can say that my friends and I would disagree with your generalization about what Catholics will do.

Of course! There are something like 30% of Catholics agree with the church hierarchy on this one. Such attitudes tend to be "lumpy".

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I have in another forums, I have no idea why any health insurance should cover contraception or Viagra. I should not have to pay for someone else's sex life. Sorry.

No need to apologize; no one is seeking agreement from someone as unthinking as you.

Persuasive argument! So, should my health insurance cover my personal trainer? Why should I subsidize somebody's sex life? How are we going to control health care costs when life style choices become health care matters? How can we justify taking money from cancer victims or reducing doctor payments to cover the costs associated with contraception or Viagra?

Others and I have addressed the thin argument repeatedly in the other threads. The "Sorry" PP (don't know if that's you), among others, refuses to deal with the obvious counterarguments. If you're sincerely interested in reasoned debate, you can go read it and get back to me, but I'm not going to write it up for the hypocritical drones to ignore once again.

As they say, "Sorry."

The average birth costs around 10K. The average NICU costs = $47K. About 15% of births are NICU. Therefore the cost of labor/delivery + NICU = $17K. I think I may have left out the extra cost of c-section or IVF. The average family has 2.3 kids, so the adjusted cost of someone who wants kids = $39K.

The average cost of birth control pills is about $25/month or $300/yr. You can buy a lot of pills for $39K. So the subsidy issue is a crock. Women who choose not to have babies cost far less, even with the pill, than women who choose to have babies.

[Anonymous]

If these places get federal $, they have to follow the rule that come with the money.

[Anonymous]

Was watching Morning Joe the other day. Mike Barnicle said he feels like the C. Church has been under attack for years now. Really Mike? Why is that? LOL

[Anonymous]

Even if it causes Obama to lose, he cannot back down or liberals will not vote.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Even if it causes Obama to lose, he cannot back down or liberals will not vote.

Liberals are used to holding their noses for the Dems every election. This is the least of the many issues that could keep liberals home. Remember: the left doesn't have a gigantic propaganda machine whipping us into a frenzy over meaningless crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if it causes Obama to lose, he cannot back down or liberals will not vote.

Dream on. Unlike the GOP the Dems know they have to play to the middle. Why? Because no liberal will stay home as long as you keep threatening to put wingnuts on the supreme court.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I have in another forums, I have no idea why any health insurance should cover contraception or Viagra. I should not have to pay for someone else's sex life. Sorry.

No need to apologize; no one is seeking agreement from someone as unthinking as you.

Persuasive argument! So, should my health insurance cover my personal trainer? Why should I subsidize somebody's sex life? How are we going to control health care costs when life style choices become health care matters? How can we justify taking money from cancer victims or reducing doctor payments to cover the costs associated with contraception or Viagra?

Others and I have addressed the thin argument repeatedly in the other threads. The "Sorry" PP (don't know if that's you), among others, refuses to deal with the obvious counterarguments. If you're sincerely interested in reasoned debate, you can go read it and get back to me, but I'm not going to write it up for the hypocritical drones to ignore once again.

As they say, "Sorry."

And your argument is? Having a baby involves medical care for both mom and baby, as the lives of both can be at risk. Having sex as often as one wants or continuing to have sex at an older age is not a medical issue. What about legal drugs that build muscles? I want to get bigger, so let my insurer (and you) pay. In this scenario, I have no medical issues, but I simply have the desire to get bigger. What's the difference?

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I have in another forums, I have no idea why any health insurance should cover contraception or Viagra. I should not have to pay for someone else's sex life. Sorry.

No need to apologize; no one is seeking agreement from someone as unthinking as you.

Persuasive argument! So, should my health insurance cover my personal trainer? Why should I subsidize somebody's sex life? How are we going to control health care costs when life style choices become health care matters? How can we justify taking money from cancer victims or reducing doctor payments to cover the costs associated with contraception or Viagra?

Others and I have addressed the thin argument repeatedly in the other threads. The "Sorry" PP (don't know if that's you), among others, refuses to deal with the obvious counterarguments. If you're sincerely interested in reasoned debate, you can go read it and get back to me, but I'm not going to write it up for the hypocritical drones to ignore once again.

As they say, "Sorry."

And your argument is? Having a baby involves medical care for both mom and baby, as the lives of both can be at risk. Having sex as often as one wants or continuing to have sex at an older age is not a medical issue. What about legal drugs that build muscles? I want to get bigger, so let my insurer (and you) pay. In this scenario, I have no medical issues, but I simply have the desire to get bigger. What's the difference?

Now your ignoring my statement about you ignoring our arguments. Here it is again, so you can ignore it again:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:Others and I have addressed the thin argument repeatedly in the other threads. The "Sorry" PP (don't know if that's you), among others, refuses to deal with the obvious counterarguments. If you're sincerely interested in reasoned debate, you can go read it and get back to me, but I'm not going to write it up for the hypocritical drones to ignore once again.

Ignore them all some more. Bark your dogma some more. Start ten more threads on the subject.