Contraception

[BigAl]

Just how much does it costs for rubbers these days?

And why do College Girls need you and I to pay for those they use?

Beats the hell out of me.

Dems can't make sense and liberals well they are not even trying to make sense.

They just seat themselves and occupy.

What is occupy mean anyway.

They have no narrative on how we should change for the better.

They just park their keasters and see who gets mad faster the sanitation workers or the police.

[f6gal]

It's not about rubbers.  It's about oral contraceptives and whether employers that have religious or moral objections should have to pay for them. 

It pretty much goes without saying that under Obama-care we will be paying for them.

[Jess from VA]

Al, I agree with your thoughts, except

1) last I checked it was both boys and girls who use condoms

2) I want G spending to be cut in half right now......... but really, considering a cost-benefit analysis, G money for free condoms is probably one of their few good ideas.   What do you figure STDs and unloved children cost us?

[MarkT]

Well - if we have to pay for them to get laid then I want the gov't to buy hookers for me.

[BF]

Well - if we have to pay for them to get laid then I want the gov't to buy hookers for me.

MartT for prez.   

[B]

We pay for condoms so we don't have to sponsor (support) her and her 8 kids later, I guess. 

[junior]

i would rather pay to get them spayeded,right along with the welfare system. after they have 2 kids get fixed or get off the system

[Steven W.]

I am more for the IQ testing method.....when a child (boy or girl) hits the magic age of 13, give them an IQ test.  If they can't reach triple digits, neuter them.  They won't be smart enough to understand what is happening to them and that will eliminate a great portion of the scum at the bottom of the DNA pool.

[junior]

I am more for the IQ testing method.....when a child (boy or girl) hits the magic age of 13, give them an IQ test.  If they can't reach triple digits, neuter them.  They won't be smart enough to understand what is happening to them and that will eliminate a great portion of the scum at the bottom of the DNA pool.

them are strong words  consitering where you are from........................lol

[98valk]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

the next evolution of this??  abortists and these people unknowingly worship Moloch, the ancient pagan God of child sacrifice. http://carm.org/christianity/miscellaneous-topics/moloch-ancient-pagan-god-child-sacrifice
and the pill kills the baby after conception  http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/untold.htm
Abortifacients work after fertilization (conception) by killing the newly conceived human. These include oral contraceptives (the "Pill"), IUD, Norplant, Depo-Provera, Emergency Contraception (the "Morning-After Pill"), and anti-fertility vaccines. The U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare defined abortion as follows:

"All the measures which impair the viability of the zygote at any time between the instant of fertilization and the completing of labor constitute, in the strict sense, procedures for indudng abortion."1
(emphasis added)
Although 1.6 million surgical abortions take place each year in the U.S., Dr. Bogomir Kuhar, a pharmacist concerned about chemical abortion, has calculated that in combining all forms of induced abortion -- the IUD, Depo-Provera, Norplant, surgical, and the Pill (and injectables, implants, and oral products that work in a similar fashion), between 9.6 and 13.4 million young lives are terminated in the U.S. alone each year.2
http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/untold.htm

and they considered themselves modern free thinking people, Not! they are demon possessed and don't even know it.
Ephesians 6:
10 A final word: Be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on all of God’s armor so that you will be able to stand firm against all strategies of the devil.
12 For we[c] are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html


normal people comments are worth reading

[The Anvil]

2) I want G spending to be cut in half right now......... but really, considering a cost-benefit analysis, G money for free condoms is probably one of their few good ideas.   What do you figure STDs and unloved children cost us?

Someone with an ounce of sense! 

[texaninsouthfl]

It's not about rubbers.  It's about oral contraceptives and whether employers that have religious or moral objections should have to pay for them. 

It pretty much goes without saying that under Obama-care we will be paying for them.

You're close to being right... It's not just about whether the Grand Imperial Federal Government can force employers with "religious or moral objections" to pay for contraceptives, it's about whether or not it can dictate to employers and insurance company what they HAVE to provide and who has to pay for it. Making this just about contraceptives is a red herring and serves to divert that attention of the country from really what it's about, which is an ever expanding, out of control, nanny state.

[eric in md]

 

i would rather pay to get them spayeded,right along with the welfare system. after they have 2 kids get fixed or get off the system

  hell ya even before they have kids....

[The Anvil]

i would rather pay to get them spayeded,right along with the welfare system. after they have 2 kids get fixed or get off the system

  hell ya even before they have kids....

Oh yeah, because that's not an icy hill at all. 

[fon1961]

condoms don't prevent the spread of std's they reduce the chances of various infections.

i think that f6gal is right on the mark with the true debate

It's not about rubbers.  It's about oral contraceptives and whether employers that have religious or moral objections should have to pay for them.

oral contraceptives don't reduce reduce the spread of std's.

so....anybody been on any good motorcycle rides lately or made any mod's to their bikes that they would like to talk about lol?

[The Anvil]

condoms don't prevent the spread of std's they reduce the chances of various infections.

Yes they do.

[fon1961]

maybe poor wording on my part.

fda website

Will a condom guarantee I won't get a sexually transmitted disease?
No. There's no absolute guarantee even when you use a condom. But most experts believe that the risk of getting HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases can be greatly reduced if a condom is used properly.

In other words, sex with condoms isn't totally "safe sex," but it is "less risky" sex.

the debate is not about the cost of condoms

[fon1961]

don't want to argue, honestly trying to be objective tho 

[3fan4life]

NOW HERE IS A CONTRACEPTIVE:






ONE LOOK AT HER AND YOU CAN'T THINK ABOUT SEX FOR AT LEAST A WEEK. 

[fon1961]

i'm skipping breakfast lol

[texaninsouthfl]

NOW HERE IS A CONTRACEPTIVE:






ONE LOOK AT HER AND YOU CAN'T THINK ABOUT SEX FOR AT LEAST A WEEK. 

Holy crap, where did you find that picture of my ex-sister-in-law???

[G-Man]

Forget the religous crap,.....Why does society as a whole have to pay for some peoples choices?  Over-the-counter contraception is available for free at hospitals, clinics, women's health facilities, etc., and they are relatively inexpensive for those that have to pay for them.  They are also available 24hrs a day in convenience stores, pharmacies, 7-11's, all over the country.  And still, Maury Povich has enough material for two shows a day, every day, for 20 years, yelling "YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER".

This has nothing to do with preventing pregnancy or the spread of disease or womens health.  This is the gov't, reaching it's hand into the pockets of Peter so that Paul and Pauline, a couple who already practice safe sex and birth control, can make the choice and switch to the pill.  The ones who aren't using contraception now aren't all of a sudden going to rush out for pill prescriptions. 

Why should society have to pay for women's birth control choices?  It's not employers who pay, it's us.  Businesses will just pass the cost of higher insurance premiums to us by raising prices or paying less in wages. 

This anti-semite in cheif has to go!

[musclehead]

I am more for the IQ testing method.....when a child (boy or girl) hits the magic age of 13, give them an IQ test.  If they can't reach triple digits, neuter them.  They won't be smart enough to understand what is happening to them and that will eliminate a great portion of the scum at the bottom of the DNA pool.

eugenics anyone?  H.G. Wells bought into it too, not to mention the Nazis they thought it would be great!

that qualifies as fascism my friend!

[thumper]

crap!

I remember when this was a motorcycle forum!

[lucky_1_chris]

I am more for the IQ testing method.....when a child (boy or girl) hits the magic age of 13, give them an IQ test.  If they can't reach triple digits, neuter them.  They won't be smart enough to understand what is happening to them and that will eliminate a great portion of the scum at the bottom of the DNA pool.

Wow.

[junior]

NOW HERE IS A CONTRACEPTIVE:






ONE LOOK AT HER AND YOU CAN'T THINK ABOUT SEX FOR AT LEAST A WEEK. 

 now that a woman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! one you wouldnt have to cheat on cause you could boink a differant wrinkle every night 

[flamingobabe #44]

what happened to being responsible for yourself....

[fudgie]

I carry 2 trojens (XL of coarse  ) in my windshield pouches. If a college girl wants it, they can have it. 

[Jeff K]

This issue has snowballed from the birth control mandate on the church. In an effort to spin this issue away from the fact that this administration is going to force a religion to violate their beliefs, they and the liberal media have spun this into a birth control issue. And when that didn't take enough heat off of them they turned it into a war on women and are now saying that the right wants to ban birth control entirely. And you know what? It's working. I've had conversations with people I know, and they are completely brain washed into the fact that this is an issue about banning birth control. It has nothing to do with that. They are winning this battle and the church is so far out of the picture now no one even remembers how this all started. It isn't about birth control. It's about making a religion bow down to the government. Whats next, forcing the Amish to buy Chevy Volts?

And the Poor "average college girl" is actually a 30 yr old women's rights activist. The only reason she is attending Georgetown is because she had planned on fighting their policy on BC. She got exactly what she wanted and planned for.

[fudgie]

I kinda disagree with the church saying no to the 'pill'. The pill is not used solely for birth control. Alot of women take it due to gyno problems. The pill helps fix and prevent alot of them problems. But there is no talk of that. 

[Jeff K]

I kinda disagree with the church saying no to the 'pill'. The pill is not used solely for birth control. Alot of women take it due to gyno problems. The pill helps fix and prevent alot of them problems. But there is no talk of that. 

No talk of that? Your kidding right? I hear that argument all the time. And again, it has nothing to do with the discussion. This is entirely about forcing a religion to do something that is against their faith. No one forces women to work at orgs that do not cover birth control. My insurance at work doesn't cover a lot of things I wish they did, but it doesn't. And I can't think of anything they cover for FREE. I have a choice, get over it, or quit.
They have the same choice.

[fudgie]

No all i hear is talk of contraception. I hear nothing about the benifits of the pill that are helping women with their gyno problems. Only 'birth' related.

[3fan4life]

No all i hear is talk of contraception. I hear nothing about the benifits of the pill that are helping women with their gyno problems. Only 'birth' related.

Yes, there can be some benefits to women when BC pills are used as a hormone replacement, 

What I hear more about Oral contraceptives is the health risk that they pose to women.


Women should be allowed to choose whatever form of Birth Control (if any) that they choose.

Like Mike said, this isn't about birth control, it's about religious freedom.

I have no idea why the Catholic Church is so against birth control. I haven't read anything in the Bible that leads me to believe that using birth control would be wrong.

But, if that's their "thing" then they have a right to that belief and the government should not be allowed to FORCE them to do something that goes against their religious beliefs.

The 1st Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If our government gets by with this what's next ?

Will Kosher Delis be forced to serve pork ?   


I know that you are a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, are not the other 9 that make up the Bill of Rights equally important ?

[Bob E.]

The ignorance of some people is just astounding.  "Why should we have to pay for a woman's birth control?" is about the stupidest arguement I've heard.  First of all, people are still paying for a big portion of their own insurance in many cases...even if it is offered through their employer.  Hell, between my premiums and the deductible, I contribute almost $7000 towards my insurance (family coverage) before my provider spends a dime.  Nobody is asking you to pay for someone else's meds....except that in the larger grand scheme of things, that's exactly what insurance is.  You pay into a pool that covers the expenses of everyone in the pool.  Everyone pays a lower amount...some get less value back and others get more when they get sick or whatever.  Why don't you just ask..."I don't have cancer, so why should I have to pay for all these cancer patients using up all of the money and driving up costs??"  Or...Why should women have to buy insurance that covers Viagra or vasectomies??  Another thing...according to the CBO, this is actually a revenue-neutral policy because the cost of covering contraception is more than covered by the savings of covering the increased child births and prenatal care that would result without contraception.

And as for the religious or moral exemptions...this looks like a reasonable arguement when your objections match those being raised.  But lets look at this from another angle.  What if your employer were a Jehova's Witness.  Should they provide insurance that covers life-saving blood transfusions?  What if your employer was a Scientologist?  Should they have to provide insurance for mental health care?  What if your employer didn't believe children should get vaccinations?  What if your employer was homophobic and refused to cover HIV/AIDS meds...whether you caught it from homosexual activity or not?  What if your employer thought the biker lifestyle was immoral, so they chose not to provide coverage for motorcycle accidents??  What this boils down to is an arguement of two sides.  On one side, we have corporate and religious institutions and on the other side we have individuals and their rights are in conflict.  The dems are on the side of the individuals.  And while the reps like to talk about individual liberties and all, they are on the side of the institutions.  The gov't isn't forcing anyone to USE contraception.  But they are saying that it must be covered by insurance if the individual needs it.  The only real way around this competing conflict is for us to move away from an employer-based insurance system and towards an individual based system.  But then you lose the benefits of large pools of employees and large corporate competition driving down costs.

[The Anvil]

The ignorance of some people is just astounding.  "Why should we have to pay for a woman's birth control?" is about the stupidest arguement I've heard.  First of all, people are still paying for a big portion of their own insurance in many cases...even if it is offered through their employer.  Hell, between my premiums and the deductible, I contribute almost $7000 towards my insurance (family coverage) before my provider spends a dime.  Nobody is asking you to pay for someone else's meds....except that in the larger grand scheme of things, that's exactly what insurance is.  You pay into a pool that covers the expenses of everyone in the pool.  Everyone pays a lower amount...some get less value back and others get more when they get sick or whatever.  Why don't you just ask..."I don't have cancer, so why should I have to pay for all these cancer patients using up all of the money and driving up costs??"  Or...Why should women have to buy insurance that covers Viagra or vasectomies??  Another thing...according to the CBO, this is actually a revenue-neutral policy because the cost of covering contraception is more than covered by the savings of covering the increased child births and prenatal care that would result without contraception.

And as for the religious or moral exemptions...this looks like a reasonable arguement when your objections match those being raised.  But lets look at this from another angle.  What if your employer were a Jehova's Witness.  Should they provide insurance that covers life-saving blood transfusions?  What if your employer was a Scientologist?  Should they have to provide insurance for mental health care?  What if your employer didn't believe children should get vaccinations?  What if your employer was homophobic and refused to cover HIV/AIDS meds...whether you caught it from homosexual activity or not?  What if your employer thought the biker lifestyle was immoral, so they chose not to provide coverage for motorcycle accidents??  What this boils down to is an arguement of two sides.  On one side, we have corporate and religious institutions and on the other side we have individuals and their rights are in conflict.  The dems are on the side of the individuals.  And while the reps like to talk about individual liberties and all, they are on the side of the institutions.  The gov't isn't forcing anyone to USE contraception.  But they are saying that it must be covered by insurance if the individual needs it.  The only real way around this competing conflict is for us to move away from an employer-based insurance system and towards an individual based system.  But then you lose the benefits of large pools of employees and large corporate competition driving down costs.

Listen to you with your well-reasoned, rational argument. Your kind ain't welcome here (click-click).

[SANDMAN5]

Hypocrisy: Demanding that the Government stay out of your bedroom
and your womb while simultaneously demanding they pay for your
birth control and abortions.

[The Anvil]

Hypocrisy: Demanding that the Government stay out of your bedroom
and your womb while simultaneously demanding they pay for your
birth control and abortions.

That actually works both ways Bob.

Hypocrisy: telling the government that you don't want them forcing birth control on you but insisting that they make new laws (up to and including constitutional amendments) to regulate sexual activity and marriage.

[Jeff K]

Hypocrisy: Demanding that the Government stay out of your bedroom
and your womb while simultaneously demanding they pay for your
birth control and abortions.

That actually works both ways Bob.

Hypocrisy: telling the government that you don't want them forcing birth control on you but insisting that they make new laws (up to and including constitutional amendments) to regulate sexual activity and marriage.

Sorry, that makes no sense. Who is trying to force birth control on anyone in the US?

[The Anvil]

Hypocrisy: Demanding that the Government stay out of your bedroom
and your womb while simultaneously demanding they pay for your
birth control and abortions.

That actually works both ways Bob.

Hypocrisy: telling the government that you don't want them forcing birth control on you but insisting that they make new laws (up to and including constitutional amendments) to regulate sexual activity and marriage.

Sorry, that makes no sense. Who is trying to force birth control on anyone in the US?

Exactly.

[x]

Fortunately, the woman hater days are numbered.