If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Riverfront Times)   MO Rep. Stacey Newman (D-ispleased) has the balls to turn the contraception debate around   (blogs.riverfronttimes.com) divider line 309
    More: Spiffy, contraceptives, Department of Health  
•       •       •

8476 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Mar 2012 at 5:24 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



309 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-02 06:59:09 PM

DrewCurtisJr: They don't want to pay for male contraception either.


Actually I've seen no one make a stink about having to pay for male contraception.

Let's just face the fact the double standard is at play and nothing else.
 
2012-03-02 07:02:17 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: The Why Not Guy: A few weeks ago when the Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood thing hit the news, I was pleasantly surprised to see that access to birth control - and Planned Parenthood itself - have so much support in the United States. I expected it from the Left. I didn't expect it from Independents and even some of the Right. But there it was.

And the GOP in its infinite wisdom took that slap on the hand and doubled down, taking ownership of the "war against contraception" and topping it off with a healthy dose of misogyny (I can just see our friends on the Right reading this and muttering "well they are sluts!"

It's so funny that not wanting to pay for birth control or not wanting fetuses to be killed automatically translates to misogyny for the loony left. I'm not pro-life, but I recognize that the catholic church and other religious pro-lifers are concerned about the killing of fetuses (or babies, in their parlance). It's not some sort of anti-woman position, no matter how much you want to fool yourself into believing that.


The combination is what makes it misogyny. If it was JUST against abortion, while supporting the education on and use of birth control, and safe sex would just be pro-life. When you combine the collection of pro-life, anti-contraception, and abstinence only education is what makes the GOP misogynistic.
 
2012-03-02 07:02:31 PM

Edsel: Jacobin: DarthBrooks: quickdraw: DarthBrooks: She left out the part about forcing everyone to cover these procedures *free* as a requirement of their health insurance policy.

Gosh I was hoping to have single-payer but heck your idea is much better. We shouldn't just have single-payer we should all, as citizens, have a financial stake in the insurance industry. I mean thats kind of taking Socialism to a whole new level but I see now what a visionary you are. Genius!

Oh I see- - the INSURANCE COMPANIES will pay for the free services, not the people who pay the premiums for the insurance. The money must come from a Magic Money Tree that every insurance company has in its tastefully-decorated lobby.

Yes because premiums will go down when the insurance companies pay for more pregnancies and child birth bills than they would by being gouged by the high cost of birth control pills

I don't see anything wrong with these retards expressing what they actually think. They don't want insurance companies to cover birth control for women because it's just subsidizing these sluts for having sex. Why sugarcoat it? This is what Republicans actually believe.


They are just mad because they can't get young boys subsidized for them.
 
2012-03-02 07:03:06 PM

Mrtraveler01: Actually I've seen no one make a stink about having to pay for male contraception.


Who is mandating anyone pay for male contraception?

Let's just face the fact the double standard is at play and nothing else.

Exactly, women's contraception gets covered, no co-pay allowed, yet for some reason the feel it is fine to exclude men's coverage.
 
2012-03-02 07:03:24 PM
Wait....why is the Cathoic Church being constantly brough up here? Do we really want a group of men who are so sexually repressed that they resort to buggaring children? Seriously, there are people in this forum that are actively defending child molesters. Think about that for a second. They are against contraception, but are for child molestors.

And another thing. All the twits like randomjsa complaining that men don't get free condoms. Do men have to take a pill daily that affects their biology to provide a safer sexual experience? No. Until we do, we can safely STFU about the whole debate and let the women worry about their genitals. They outnumber us after all.

Go ahead and make contraceptives more expensive or outright uninsurable. See what women will do. They can vibe their junk a hell of a lot better than most of us can use ours.
 
2012-03-02 07:03:27 PM

Benni K Rok: Debeo Summa Credo: The Why Not Guy: A few weeks ago when the Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood thing hit the news, I was pleasantly surprised to see that access to birth control - and Planned Parenthood itself - have so much support in the United States. I expected it from the Left. I didn't expect it from Independents and even some of the Right. But there it was.

And the GOP in its infinite wisdom took that slap on the hand and doubled down, taking ownership of the "war against contraception" and topping it off with a healthy dose of misogyny (I can just see our friends on the Right reading this and muttering "well they are sluts!"

It's so funny that not wanting to pay for birth control or not wanting fetuses to be killed automatically translates to misogyny for the loony left. I'm not pro-life, but I recognize that the catholic church and other religious pro-lifers are concerned about the killing of fetuses (or babies, in their parlance). It's not some sort of anti-woman position, no matter how much you want to fool yourself into believing that.

The combination is what makes it misogyny. If it was JUST against abortion, while supporting the education on and use of birth control, and safe sex would just be pro-life. When you combine the collection of pro-life, anti-contraception, and abstinence only education is what makes the GOP misogynistic.


QFT

This is why I think Pro-Life is nothing but a huge sham.
 
2012-03-02 07:05:26 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Exactly, women's contraception gets covered, no co-pay allowed, yet for some reason the feel it is fine to exclude men's coverage.


Men's coverage for what?
 
2012-03-02 07:07:05 PM

Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: but I recognize that the catholic church and other religious pro-lifers are concerned about the killing of fetuses (or babies, in their parlance).

True, but the fact that they don't give a shiat about the welfare and what happens to the kid after he/she is born makes me not give a fark about what they think when it comes to abortion.


The catholic church, for one, absolutely gives a shiat about the welfare of the poor by doctrine.

Besides, your argument can very easily be turned around - the fact that you don't give a shiat about whether a fetus is killed before it can be born makes others not give a fark about what you think about benefits for impoverished children.
 
2012-03-02 07:08:28 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Mrtraveler01: Actually I've seen no one make a stink about having to pay for male contraception.

Who is mandating anyone pay for male contraception?

Let's just face the fact the double standard is at play and nothing else.

Exactly, women's contraception gets covered, no co-pay allowed, yet for some reason the feel it is fine to exclude men's coverage.


I got male contraception mixed up with boner pills.

As I saw someone on TV point out.

The Catholic Church is ok subsidizing boner pills to guys...even if they're single. Which means that there's a good chance that those boner pills are being used for sex out of wedlock and that the Catholic Church is essentially paying for sex out of wedlock.

And yet the Catholic Church says nothing about it and actually thinks that boner pills are good.

Link

So quit being stupid and face the fact that the double standard benefits the guys..especially if they work for a Catholic affiliated organization.
 
2012-03-02 07:09:18 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: but I recognize that the catholic church and other religious pro-lifers are concerned about the killing of fetuses (or babies, in their parlance).

True, but the fact that they don't give a shiat about the welfare and what happens to the kid after he/she is born makes me not give a fark about what they think when it comes to abortion.

The catholic church, for one, absolutely gives a shiat about the welfare of the poor by doctrine.

Besides, your argument can very easily be turned around - the fact that you don't give a shiat about whether a fetus is killed before it can be born makes others not give a fark about what you think about benefits for impoverished children.


The church would love that unborn fetus to grow up into a plump, lush twelve year old boy. He gets extra lessons in morality, delivered by the minister himself, at his home or in his office, alone.
 
2012-03-02 07:09:38 PM

gimmegimme: Debeo Summa Credo: The Why Not Guy: A few weeks ago when the Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood thing hit the news, I was pleasantly surprised to see that access to birth control - and Planned Parenthood itself - have so much support in the United States. I expected it from the Left. I didn't expect it from Independents and even some of the Right. But there it was.

And the GOP in its infinite wisdom took that slap on the hand and doubled down, taking ownership of the "war against contraception" and topping it off with a healthy dose of misogyny (I can just see our friends on the Right reading this and muttering "well they are sluts!"

It's so funny that not wanting to pay for birth control or not wanting fetuses to be killed automatically translates to misogyny for the loony left. I'm not pro-life, but I recognize that the catholic church and other religious pro-lifers are concerned about the killing of fetuses (or babies, in their parlance). It's not some sort of anti-woman position, no matter how much you want to fool yourself into believing that.

Are you implying that men can carry fetuses (or babies, in their parlance)?

How can these positions NOT be anti-woman? These organizations are doing their best to prevent as many womenfetuses as possible from being killed controlling their reproductive decisions.


FTFY.
 
2012-03-02 07:10:16 PM

Bevets: help help i'm being repressed


I'm sorry, 'Freedom of Religion' was last week. This week is 'Sluts and Whores'. Please adjust your Right-Wing Whine Agenda appropriately.
 
2012-03-02 07:10:31 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: The catholic church, for one, absolutely gives a shiat about the welfare of the poor by doctrine


The nobility of the Catholic Church's compassion for the poor is more than offset by its active sheltering of pedophile priests.
 
2012-03-02 07:11:33 PM

The Why Not Guy: Debeo Summa Credo: The catholic church, for one, absolutely gives a shiat about the welfare of the poor by doctrine

The nobility of the Catholic Church's compassion for the poor is more than offset by its active sheltering of pedophile priests.


And the millions of children that have been orphaned because of the Church's policy with respect to condoms.
 
2012-03-02 07:12:11 PM

iaazathot: DarthBrooks: quickdraw: DarthBrooks: The money must come from a Magic Money Tree that every insurance company has in its tastefully-decorated lobby.

Oh... that explains their profit margins. :P

By all means, please show me some profit margins at Blue Cross Blue Shield of *pick any state*.

And now we know you are an idiot beyond any shadow of a doubt. Being not for profit, does not mean you can't make more than your operating costs. It just means you can't distribute those profits or have stock. The CEO of BCBS Wyoming makes 400K a year, I think they are doing pretty damn well.

Let me tell you about BCBS of Wyoming that is trying to deny any healthy person or family on any technicality in order to drive them into the uninsurable pool so they can charge them $1600 a month for insurance. Yep, sounds like a company not interested in profit to me.

So fark off and stop talking about things you don't understand and using words you don't comprehend.


Don't bother... He skedaddled, apparently, after being informed that BCBS in MA had a net income of $136 million last year... While continuing to jack up rates on businesses and individuals in the Commonwealth.
 
2012-03-02 07:12:41 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: but I recognize that the catholic church and other religious pro-lifers are concerned about the killing of fetuses (or babies, in their parlance).

True, but the fact that they don't give a shiat about the welfare and what happens to the kid after he/she is born makes me not give a fark about what they think when it comes to abortion.

The catholic church, for one, absolutely gives a shiat about the welfare of the poor by doctrine.

Besides, your argument can very easily be turned around - the fact that you don't give a shiat about whether a fetus is killed before it can be born makes others not give a fark about what you think about benefits for impoverished children.


That makes no farking sense. Way to fail.
 
2012-03-02 07:13:37 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: How can these positions NOT be anti-woman? These organizations are doing their best to prevent as many womenfetuses as possible from being killed controlling their reproductive decisions.


Birth control kills fetuses?

"Do you know what that means? I have wiped entire civilizations off of my chest, with a grey gym sock."
 
2012-03-02 07:14:44 PM

gimmegimme: The Why Not Guy: Debeo Summa Credo: The catholic church, for one, absolutely gives a shiat about the welfare of the poor by doctrine

The nobility of the Catholic Church's compassion for the poor is more than offset by its active sheltering of pedophile priests.

And the millions of children that have been orphaned because of the Church's policy with respect to condoms.


Hey! Jesus himself said "Have thy nookie, ensuring thine seed, doesth enter the lady garden, not explodeth on the face or breast. Once thine fun is had, leave a false name and shrugeth thine burden of fatherhood."
 
2012-03-02 07:14:50 PM

The Why Not Guy: Debeo Summa Credo: It's so funny that not wanting to pay for birth control or not wanting fetuses to be killed automatically translates to misogyny for the loony left.

I didn't say that, sugar.

But calling women who have sex "sluts" on national radio and holding congressional hearings on the topic without inviting any women to speak certainly counts as misogyny

When you put words in my mouth, I let it slide as a mistake once.


Okay. My bad I guess. The way I read it was that you were tying the 'misogyny' to being anti birth control mandate or pro-life, not imparting a separate 'misogyny' label to the GOP because of what LImbaugh said.
 
2012-03-02 07:15:09 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: The Why Not Guy: A few weeks ago when the Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood thing hit the news, I was pleasantly surprised to see that access to birth control - and Planned Parenthood itself - have so much support in the United States. I expected it from the Left. I didn't expect it from Independents and even some of the Right. But there it was.

And the GOP in its infinite wisdom took that slap on the hand and doubled down, taking ownership of the "war against contraception" and topping it off with a healthy dose of misogyny (I can just see our friends on the Right reading this and muttering "well they are sluts!"

It's so funny that not wanting to pay for birth control or not wanting fetuses to be killed automatically translates to misogyny for the loony left. I'm not pro-life, but I recognize that the catholic church and other religious pro-lifers are concerned about the killing of fetuses (or babies, in their parlance). It's not some sort of anti-woman position, no matter how much you want to fool yourself into believing that.


If the new tact of them not paying for it but the insurance companies throwing it in for free is unacceptable on the basis of fungible dollars, the nothing short of these hospitals banning their employee's paychecks going towards contraception should be acceptable.

If not, then they should shut up and stop.playing these stupid games.

Insurance plans are just part of the pay given to an employee, and the employee shouldn't be restricted based on the morality of the employer. Just toss the basic farking plans out there like everyone else. Your Jesus isn't stupid; he knows you didn't shove a birth control pill down their throat or vacuum out their zygotes.

This isn't even the actual employers up in arms from what I've been reading, but more just a trickling down of junk from the Vatican. I don't get to invoke the pope when it comes to torture, Iraq, or welfare, and no one else should get to on women's rights.

Pills and abortions are legal. Try to change that if you want, but don't insult the rest of with this kind of crap.
 
2012-03-02 07:16:23 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Debeo Summa Credo: How can these positions NOT be anti-woman? These organizations are doing their best to prevent as many womenfetuses as possible from being killed controlling their reproductive decisions.

Birth control kills fetuses?

"Do you know what that means? I have wiped entire civilizations off of my chest, with a grey gym sock."


That's nothing. The genocide I committed during my teen years would put Hitler to shame.
 
2012-03-02 07:17:15 PM
I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand.

Priests, nuns, deacons are involved in direct and explicit religious activity, and their employment is entirely dependent on their religious activity, therefore they are allowed a religious exemption and should not be complelled into being offered an insurance plan which violates such religious beliefs.

Doctors, teachers, hospital janitors, etc. are all engaged in non-religious activites, even if employed by a religious organization. Because their employment is not conditional on engaging in explicitly religious activity and are subject to the same health insurance laws and regulations as everyone else, including employer responsibilities, even if their employer is a religious organization.

There is nothing complicated or difficult about this. Even if your doctor is religious, they're not engaging in religious activity and are not subject to a religious exemption based on their employment.
 
2012-03-02 07:19:00 PM
So are we going back to 'Freedom of Religion' and not sticking with 'Sluts and Whores'? I'm losing track here.
 
2012-03-02 07:19:16 PM

Bevets: quickdraw:

[littlegreenfootballs.com image 485x313]

No reporters seemed to ponder the possibility that the feminists might have an agenda to deflect attention from the real point of the panel-the violation of religious liberty in the President's new healthcare law. Nor did the various news outlets give much attention at all to a photo of the second panel that addressed congress:

[www.dennyburk.com image 573x383]


Seriously, what isn't a violation of religious liberty in your world?
 
2012-03-02 07:19:49 PM

Mrtraveler01: So quit being stupid and face the fact that the double standard benefits the guys..especially if they work for a Catholic affiliated organization.


So comparing two like things, contraception they are consistent.

From your own link:

Vasectomies, on the other hand, are banned by Catholic-sponsored health insurance. "We have the same objection to male sterilization as to the female variety," Doerflinger says. (new window)

And why don't you stop being stupid and stop comparing ED to contraception.

Show me a case where male contraception is covered but female contraception is not.

On the other hand I can show you plenty of cases where female contraception is mandated by law but male contraception is ignored.
 
2012-03-02 07:21:15 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Debeo Summa Credo: How can these positions NOT be anti-woman? These organizations are doing their best to prevent as many womenfetuses as possible from being killed controlling their reproductive decisions.

Birth control kills fetuses?

"Do you know what that means? I have wiped entire civilizations off of my chest, with a grey gym sock."


Good lord. Are we back on birth control? I thought we were talking about abortion.

Let's be clear - the Catholic church opposes abortion because it kills fetuses (oh, and its a mortal sin in their eyes). the catholic church also opposes birth control, because it is against the doctrine of the church. That said, the recent brouhaha wasn't the church trying to ban birth control, but rather NOT BE FORCED TO PAY FOR IT VIA MANDATED INSURANCE.

Neither instances is misogynistic at all. As someone upthread said, the church is against condoms as well.

Any besides, the original poster who started this 'misogyny' discussion wasn't attributing it to BC or abortion at all, as it turns out. I just misread the post.
 
2012-03-02 07:21:16 PM

error 303: I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand.


Understanding is not the objective.

www.theage.com.au
 
2012-03-02 07:25:32 PM

Mrtraveler01: makes others not give a fark about what you think about benefits for impoverished children.

That makes no farking sense. Way to fail.


Therefore save the pregnoid ,but screw the poor bornchild, absolving these holy rollers from any concern for those who just don't get how great the Free Market is .
 
2012-03-02 07:25:59 PM
SmackledorferPills and abortions are legal. Try to change that if you want, but don't insult the rest of with this kind of crap.

I don't want to change that. What I want to change is the law that requires employers to pay for whatever coverage the government decides is appropriate. Why is it an infringement on a woman's rights if she has to pay for her own BC, but it's not an infringement on an employer's rights to make them pay for coverage they don't want to, or to which they have a moral objection?
 
2012-03-02 07:26:06 PM
What is male contraception? Males can't conceive.

See? I can be obtuse too.
 
2012-03-02 07:26:52 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Debeo Summa Credo: How can these positions NOT be anti-woman? These organizations are doing their best to prevent as many womenfetuses as possible from being killed controlling their reproductive decisions.

Birth control kills fetuses?

"Do you know what that means? I have wiped entire civilizations off of my chest, with a grey gym sock."

Good lord. Are we back on birth control? I thought we were talking about abortion.

Let's be clear - the Catholic church opposes abortion because it kills fetuses (oh, and its a mortal sin in their eyes). the catholic church also opposes birth control, because it is against the doctrine of the church. That said, the recent brouhaha wasn't the church trying to ban birth control, but rather NOT BE FORCED TO PAY FOR IT VIA MANDATED INSURANCE.

Neither instances is misogynistic at all. As someone upthread said, the church is against condoms as well.

Any besides, the original poster who started this 'misogyny' discussion wasn't attributing it to BC or abortion at all, as it turns out. I just misread the post.


If the Catholic Church wants to run a business and be an employer, they must follow the rules of all other businesses and employers.
 
2012-03-02 07:27:46 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Debeo Summa Credo: How can these positions NOT be anti-woman? These organizations are doing their best to prevent as many womenfetuses as possible from being killed controlling their reproductive decisions.

Birth control kills fetuses?

"Do you know what that means? I have wiped entire civilizations off of my chest, with a grey gym sock."

Good lord. Are we back on birth control? I thought we were talking about abortion.

Let's be clear - the Catholic church opposes abortion because it kills fetuses (oh, and its a mortal sin in their eyes). the catholic church also opposes birth control, because it is against the doctrine of the church. That said, the recent brouhaha wasn't the church trying to ban birth control, but rather NOT BE FORCED TO PAY FOR IT VIA MANDATED INSURANCE.

Neither instances is misogynistic at all. As someone upthread said, the church is against condoms as well.

Any besides, the original poster who started this 'misogyny' discussion wasn't attributing it to BC or abortion at all, as it turns out. I just misread the post.


Have you ever given any thought to how a modern society would function if no one in it had to pay for anything that they claimed to have "religious objections" to?
Give it a good, hard think.
 
2012-03-02 07:29:05 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Okay. My bad I guess. The way I read it was that you were tying the 'misogyny' to being anti birth control mandate or pro-life, not imparting a separate 'misogyny' label to the GOP because of what LImbaugh said.


Being against contraception isn't misogynistic in and of itself, though I don't understand why anyone would be against it. Against abortion? I disagree, but I can see your point. Against contraception? Nope, I don't get it. But I'm sure plenty of people who are opposed to abortion and contraception have their reasons.

But look at the tone of the debate, and the way it always breaks down to men vs. women - well insurance doesn't cover condoms! - well why should we pay women to have sex? - well she's just a slut - etc etc.

Insurance covers Viagra, which makes recreational sex possible for men. But women are sluts and whores if they enjoy sex. That's misogyny. Does that apply to every single person who opposes abortion and contraception? No. But it applies to a disturbingly large number of them. And if you don't like the way that makes your movement look, be ticked off at them, not at me for noticing.
 
2012-03-02 07:29:22 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Mrtraveler01: So quit being stupid and face the fact that the double standard benefits the guys..especially if they work for a Catholic affiliated organization.

So comparing two like things, contraception they are consistent.

From your own link:

Vasectomies, on the other hand, are banned by Catholic-sponsored health insurance. "We have the same objection to male sterilization as to the female variety," Doerflinger says. (new window)

And why don't you stop being stupid and stop comparing ED to contraception.

Show me a case where male contraception is covered but female contraception is not.

On the other hand I can show you plenty of cases where female contraception is mandated by law but male contraception is ignored.


I'm just saying that boner pills for single men is no different than birth control for women in the Catholic doctrine.

Although people look like you can't seem to realize that.
 
2012-03-02 07:29:49 PM

jso2897: Debeo Summa Credo: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Debeo Summa Credo: How can these positions NOT be anti-woman? These organizations are doing their best to prevent as many womenfetuses as possible from being killed controlling their reproductive decisions.

Birth control kills fetuses?

"Do you know what that means? I have wiped entire civilizations off of my chest, with a grey gym sock."

Good lord. Are we back on birth control? I thought we were talking about abortion.

Let's be clear - the Catholic church opposes abortion because it kills fetuses (oh, and its a mortal sin in their eyes). the catholic church also opposes birth control, because it is against the doctrine of the church. That said, the recent brouhaha wasn't the church trying to ban birth control, but rather NOT BE FORCED TO PAY FOR IT VIA MANDATED INSURANCE.

Neither instances is misogynistic at all. As someone upthread said, the church is against condoms as well.

Any besides, the original poster who started this 'misogyny' discussion wasn't attributing it to BC or abortion at all, as it turns out. I just misread the post.

Have you ever given any thought to how a modern society would function if no one in it had to pay for anything that they claimed to have "religious objections" to?
Give it a good, hard think.


I have religious objections to subsidizing religious organizations through tax breaks. I have religious objections to allowing a tax-exempt status for organizations that facilitate child rape.
 
2012-03-02 07:31:28 PM

Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: but I recognize that the catholic church and other religious pro-lifers are concerned about the killing of fetuses (or babies, in their parlance).

True, but the fact that they don't give a shiat about the welfare and what happens to the kid after he/she is born makes me not give a fark about what they think when it comes to abortion.

The catholic church, for one, absolutely gives a shiat about the welfare of the poor by doctrine.

Besides, your argument can very easily be turned around - the fact that you don't give a shiat about whether a fetus is killed before it can be born makes others not give a fark about what you think about benefits for impoverished children.

That makes no farking sense. Way to fail.


It makes perfect sense and you know it. You disregard Republicans' objections to the killing of unborn children/fetuses because they are not as generous as Democrats regarding benefits for children once they are born. To you, that is hypocrisy. Democrats however, are in favor of more generous benefits for poor children - mandatory health care, food stamps, subsidized school lunches and pre-school/daycare, what have you. But while the fetus/child was still in the womb you are just fine if the mother wants to kill it.
That's also hypocrisy.
 
2012-03-02 07:34:06 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: What I want to change is the law that requires employers to pay for whatever coverage the government decides is appropriate.


Good thing that doesn't happen anywhere. Employers don't pay anything, so they don't get to decide coverage. They deduct money from my paycheck, as well as pay a share of the cost of the insurance directly on my behalf (in lieu of cash pay). You seem to think that employers should have a say in what procedures, medications, and care is administered to their employees simply because they pooled their employees together for a group discount. Should the employer be consulted for medical procedures the employee might require as well? Should the insurance company have to get sign-off from the employer for an appendectomy prior to the procedure? Should all prescriptions first need to be run through the employer to ensure that nothing runs afoul of the moral policies the employer has?
 
2012-03-02 07:35:01 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Mrtraveler01: Actually I've seen no one make a stink about having to pay for male contraception.

Who is mandating anyone pay for male contraception?

Let's just face the fact the double standard is at play and nothing else.

Exactly, women's contraception gets covered, no co-pay allowed, yet for some reason the feel it is fine to exclude men's coverage.


OK - I'll bite - what prescription male contraceptive is being excluded?
 
2012-03-02 07:37:59 PM
All of you saying right on!!!!!! then must also agree that, seeing how sperm is the same as the lady stuff, men have exactly 1/2 the right and responsibility in the decision to abort. Right? or is it different then? what if he wants to abort and she wants to keep or opposite? just asking the questions.
 
2012-03-02 07:39:44 PM
So, who exactly is forcing the Catholic Church to employ people?
 
2012-03-02 07:40:17 PM

bigsteve3OOO: what if he wants to abort and she wants to keep or opposite?


I would never tell any man what he could and could not do with his uterus.
 
2012-03-02 07:40:41 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: SmackledorferPills and abortions are legal. Try to change that if you want, but don't insult the rest of with this kind of crap.

I don't want to change that. What I want to change is the law that requires employers to pay for whatever coverage the government decides is appropriate. Why is it an infringement on a woman's rights if she has to pay for her own BC, but it's not an infringement on an employer's rights to make them pay for coverage they don't want to, or to which they have a moral objection?


read my entire post. Or are you going to plead slowness for the umpteenth time today?

businesses, and especially church leaders in Italy, don't get to exempt themselves from rules by playing the money is fungible card and invoking the first amendment.

If you simply don't like the mandate because of whatever other reason, make that argument, but there is no place for an employer to get special laws for their BUSINESS on the grounds of personal moral views.

should they be able to pay less than the minimum wage too, provided Jesus told them to?

stop paying into social welfare because their elders hopelessly confused economic policy with the teachings of Jesus?

Stop paying taxes until the army is disbanded?

Churches can go be churches and get as crazy as they like. Businesses are businesses. That is where the line needs to remain.
 
2012-03-02 07:42:34 PM

MyRandomName: Did I miss the bill saying insurance companies were not to cover tubal ligation? That's the same as a vasectomy.

People are upset at forcing companies to pay for "free" contraception, so not forcing insurers to cover condoms would be the apples to apples comparison... And half of states do not provide free condoms.

So what is the argument again?

Next up on the liberal docket, force car insurance to provide free oil changes and brake pads. It's cheaper to provide pads/maintenance than a car crash caused by bad breaks.


Did you . . . Did you just compare women to cars? A human being to a form of transportation?

/I guess you can ride both, I'll grant you that. . .
//well maybe not YOU
 
2012-03-02 07:42:51 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Debeo Summa Credo: How can these positions NOT be anti-woman? These organizations are doing their best to prevent as many womenfetuses as possible from being killed controlling their reproductive decisions.

Birth control kills fetuses?

"Do you know what that means? I have wiped entire civilizations off of my chest, with a grey gym sock."

Good lord. Are we back on birth control? I thought we were talking about abortion.

Let's be clear - the Catholic church opposes abortion because it kills fetuses (oh, and its a mortal sin in their eyes). the catholic church also opposes birth control, because it is against the doctrine of the church. That said, the recent brouhaha wasn't the church trying to ban birth control, but rather NOT BE FORCED TO PAY FOR IT VIA MANDATED INSURANCE.

Neither instances is misogynistic at all. As someone upthread said, the church is against condoms as well.

Any besides, the original poster who started this 'misogyny' discussion wasn't attributing it to BC or abortion at all, as it turns out. I just misread the post.


Just because it's a belief held by a religion doesn't mean it's automatically right.
 
2012-03-02 07:43:31 PM

Mrtraveler01: I'm just saying that boner pills for single men is no different than birth control for women in the Catholic doctrine.

Although people look like you can't seem to realize that.


Again from your same link

Still, Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops tells me that many Catholic-based health plans are now adding caveats that such drugs "should be prescribed for a medically identifiable problem to prevent wide abuse.

So they are concerned about their use and abuse. Where's the anti-male outrage?
 
2012-03-02 07:44:15 PM
You can have a vasectomy, but first doctors are required to do a trans-urethral probe.

/I think my penis just shrank typing that.
 
2012-03-02 07:45:45 PM

bigsteve3OOO: All of you saying right on!!!!!! then must also agree that, seeing how sperm is the same as the lady stuff, men have exactly 1/2 the right and responsibility in the decision to abort. Right? or is it different then? what if he wants to abort and she wants to keep or opposite? just asking the questions.


I am fully in support of the man's right to waive his parental rights and responsibilities within the first half of pregnancy (effectively "aborting" his contribution to the process).

As for if he wants to keep the child and she wants to abort... well, it's her body.
 
2012-03-02 07:46:15 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: but I recognize that the catholic church and other religious pro-lifers are concerned about the killing of fetuses (or babies, in their parlance).

True, but the fact that they don't give a shiat about the welfare and what happens to the kid after he/she is born makes me not give a fark about what they think when it comes to abortion.

The catholic church, for one, absolutely gives a shiat about the welfare of the poor by doctrine.

Besides, your argument can very easily be turned around - the fact that you don't give a shiat about whether a fetus is killed before it can be born makes others not give a fark about what you think about benefits for impoverished children.

That makes no farking sense. Way to fail.

It makes perfect sense and you know it. You disregard Republicans' objections to the killing of unborn children/fetuses because they are not as generous as Democrats regarding benefits for children once they are born. To you, that is hypocrisy. Democrats however, are in favor of more generous benefits for poor children - mandatory health care, food stamps, subsidized school lunches and pre-school/daycare, what have you. But while the fetus/child was still in the womb you are just fine if the mother wants to kill it.
That's also hypocrisy.


Personally I'm not a fan of abortion. But then again, I'm not an idiot who thinks a fetus should have the same rights as a human being so I can see where you can make that silly argument.

So no, I don't view the fetus as a baby, I view it as a fetus, like anyone else with a lick of scientific knowledge would.
 
2012-03-02 07:47:36 PM
Not read the thread yet, so this may be redundant --- but a big old meh to this ... because it's not the men who get pregnant. Shooting blanks or shooting baby-makers, most men don't care. We just want to shoot our c*m in a woman --- hopefully, a real hot looking one.
 
2012-03-02 07:47:52 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: bigsteve3OOO: what if he wants to abort and she wants to keep or opposite?

I would never tell any man what he could and could not do with his uterus.


OK I loled nice answer.
 
Displayed 50 of 309 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report