republican war on contraception

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But to correct the record E.D. Is a medical condition. It is a body part that isn't working properly and, depending on who you ask, it's a pretty important one.

Whether some old man can get it up is only a "medical condition" because big pharm spent money to create a "condition" that previously did not exist.

This has to be the dumbest thing said in this multi-thread discussion.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But to correct the record E.D. Is a medical condition. It is a body part that isn't working properly and, depending on who you ask, it's a pretty important one.

Whether some old man can get it up is only a "medical condition" because big pharm spent money to create a "condition" that previously did not exist.

This has to be the dumbest thing said in this multi-thread discussion.

Unless Big Pharma was around in the time of ancient Greece and Rome. Impotence never was considered a normal part of life.

But maybe the poster isn't picking on impotence. Maybe she believes we should not spend money on treating older people. We could draw the line at menopause. Breeding is done, let nature take its course from there on. We'll start with saving money on thyroid, estrogen, progesterone, and don't worry so much about bone density. Arthritis, hip replacements, stents, alzheimers research, there's a fortune to be saved if we assume that we can let ourselves go after having kids.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:But maybe the poster isn't picking on impotence. Maybe she believes we should not spend money on treating older people. We could draw the line at menopause. Breeding is done, let nature take its course from there on. We'll start with saving money on thyroid, estrogen, progesterone, and don't worry so much about bone density. Arthritis, hip replacements, stents, alzheimers research, there's a fortune to be saved if we assume that we can let ourselves go after having kids.

She (I'm assuming) seems pretty supportive of nature in general. We'd have to crunch the numbers, but I bet we could save a bundle if we stopped treating all naturally occurring diseases.

Either that or she thinks it impossible for a younger man to be impotent. Hmm...or I guess doctors could just determine case-by-case which men are too old to have sex.

[Anonymous]

So you men know- there are medical conditions for which women are prescribed birth control, like ovarian cysts and irregular periods.

I feel that men in power shouldn't have a say in what happens to my lady parts, but hey I am just a dumb women so what do I know?

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:So you men know- there are medical conditions for which women are prescribed birth control, like ovarian cysts and irregular periods.

I feel that men in power shouldn't have a say in what happens to my lady parts, but hey I am just a dumb women so what do I know?

I'm sure you're not dumb. Neither am I, and I (as a man) absolutely agree with you. I also think we should stop getting diverted into a Viagra vs BC argument. Both should be covered, for reasons that in some cases are the same and in some cases differ.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But maybe the poster isn't picking on impotence. Maybe she believes we should not spend money on treating older people. We could draw the line at menopause. Breeding is done, let nature take its course from there on. We'll start with saving money on thyroid, estrogen, progesterone, and don't worry so much about bone density. Arthritis, hip replacements, stents, alzheimers research, there's a fortune to be saved if we assume that we can let ourselves go after having kids.

She (I'm assuming) seems pretty supportive of nature in general. We'd have to crunch the numbers, but I bet we could save a bundle if we stopped treating all naturally occurring diseases.
Either that or she thinks it impossible for a younger man to be impotent. Hmm...or I guess doctors could just determine case-by-case which men are too old to have sex.

Aren't all diseases naturally ocurring?

Just like pregnancy is naturally occurring. Impotence is naturally occurring.

Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing depends on the perception of the person experiencing the condition.

[Anonymous]

I'm a Christian Scientist, and I find this whole debate simply *fascinating*. I'm curious: does this mean I'm allowed to deny my employees any health care plan that includes "medical treatment" due to my conscience? Of is it only Catholics who are entitled to religious freedom?

Thanks for clearing this up!

[Anonymous]

Good point. . Can Jehovah's Witnesses get a plan that prohibits blood transfusions? Or is it only religions that the wingnuts deem important?

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Or is it only religions that the wingnuts deem important?

What - are you new here? This is America. You are 100% free to be, with all of your beliefs protected:
Catholic
Baptist
Methodist
Lutheran
Presbyterian
Pentecostal
Episcopalian

What more could you want?

Enjoy your copious religious freedom, and STFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good point. . Can Jehovah's Witnesses get a plan that prohibits blood transfusions? Or is it only religions that the wingnuts deem important?

Agreed. Obviously I don't mind having my employees receive blood transfusions, so long as I'm not forced to pay for them, and by extension, abandon my faith! I think it's disgusting how Obama has urinated on the First Amendment, and shoved this down our throats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good point. . Can Jehovah's Witnesses get a plan that prohibits blood transfusions? Or is it only religions that the wingnuts deem important?

Agreed. Obviously I don't mind having my employees receive blood transfusions, so long as I'm not forced to pay for them, and by extension, abandon my faith! I think it's disgusting how Obama has urinated on the First Amendment, and shoved this down our throats.

I agree. I'm a mormon and I want my polygamy back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1 Another Catholic here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1 Another Catholic here.

Catholic liberals are a tough breed who deserve great respect, particularly when their religious leaders betray their best traditions and confirm their detractors’ worst insults.

Word up.

http://bit.ly/ziJxmC

[Anonymous]

If Catholic employers want to prevent birth control from being part of their health insurance plans that I hope they are also making sure that only Church-approved methods of fertility treatments are allowed as well.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Why should childless families have to pay money so that you can have five babies? It's not like epilepsy, something that could affect everyone and something beyond your control. It's not even something complicated like heart disease, which has a lifestyle component but also a genetic component beyond your control. The Republican logic is that sex is a choice. Therefore babies are certainly a choice.

I think that there's a lot to this idea. And it's not necessarily Republican.

The problem is that health insurance pays for all kinds of things that are just choice like sex. All kinds of things can be shoehorned into the category of "choice," but even without that effort, consider all of the injuries that really only inhibit athletics.

Why should those diseases be covered but, say, impotence not? We want to say as a matter of policy that golf is a better activity than sex?

It depends on whether the sex takes place on the golf course. That sand from the bunkers can get into everything.