Possibility of contraception restrictions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-11-2016, 02:35 PM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2016 02:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
(13-11-2016 02:26 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 02:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Pregnancy is a medical condition. In many cases estrogen, (BC) is used as a preventive measure. Prevention is CHEAPER than the results of having complex pregnancies, and unwanted children. So... it's not really about saving money for you, it's about control over women and their reproductive cycles. You have no evidence that no BC is a less expensive alternative. If you do, let's see it.

As I said, you know NOTHING about health care.
And *of course* you're not against Viagra. Laugh out load It's a CHOICE, just like BC is a choice. It's not necessary to maintain health.
You're a fraud.

Nope. You're the fraud. I don't give two shits what a woman does with her body. She can have as much sex with as many dudes as she wants. But she needs to pay for it HERSELF. I don't need to pay for it. I mean damn. This is so one sided and sexist. I wish I could have all the money back I've dropped in condoms. Why does a man have to spend $15 a box of condoms but a woman should get her version of birth control for free? Fuck that.

It's always the extreme with you liberals. If you're against illegal aliens you're a racist. If your against taxpayer funded birth control you're against women. If you're against the black lives matter movement you're a racist. And you wonder why people are moving away from the democratic party. Insults. That's all you have left

Sorry dude. It's not about you.
They don't care what men chose to do with their bodies either.
The FACT is billions of dollars are SPENT ON MEN and their sexual habits, FAR FAR MORE than on women and on BC.
And the ONLY thing you're whining about is women.
Yeah. It's perfectly obvious here what your values stem from.
IF you were a REAL conservative, you would have a consistent rational position.
You don't.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 02:40 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
(13-11-2016 02:10 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 01:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Great, and while you're at it, stop covering prescriptions for ED for you old men, which are MORE often prescribed, AND COVERED in multiple forms, than ANY BC medication.
Oops forgot that, didn't you. Oh wait. You know NOTHING about health care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lar...l_products
Funny. You NEVER hear these conservative old farts whining about their coverage for Viaga.

I'm fine with insurance covering MEDICAL CONDITIONS. ED is a medical condition. I'm also fine with birth control pills being paid by insurance or Planned Parenthood for MEDICAL CONDITIONS (hormone control, heavy periods etc). But should taxpayers foot the bill for a woman's birth control not related to a medical condition? I don't think so. What's next, men wanting their insurance to pay for their monthly condom usage? No. Buy your own condoms/birth control.

So you're saying that a hard on is needed and necessary? For what aside from sex...ok maybe masturbation....

I understand there are medical conditions that cause ED, but why should my tax dollars pay for men to fuck around? Sex isn't that important, is it?

Hmmm....


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
13-11-2016, 02:44 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
I fail to understand how people don't get that birth control medication for women isn't merely a solution to avoid pregnancy.

Why panic when you can panik? via da Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
13-11-2016, 02:45 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
(13-11-2016 02:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 02:26 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Nope. You're the fraud. I don't give two shits what a woman does with her body. She can have as much sex with as many dudes as she wants. But she needs to pay for it HERSELF. I don't need to pay for it. I mean damn. This is so one sided and sexist. I wish I could have all the money back I've dropped in condoms. Why does a man have to spend $15 a box of condoms but a woman should get her version of birth control for free? Fuck that.

It's always the extreme with you liberals. If you're against illegal aliens you're a racist. If your against taxpayer funded birth control you're against women. If you're against the black lives matter movement you're a racist. And you wonder why people are moving away from the democratic party. Insults. That's all you have left

Sorry dude. It's not about you.
The FACT is billions of dollars are SPENT ON MEN and their sexual habits, FAR FAR MORE than on women and on BC.
And the ONLY thing you're whining about is women.
Yeah. It's perfectly obvious here what your values stem from.
IF you were a REAL conservative, you would have a consistent rational position.
You don't.

ED medicine enables a man to have sexual intercourse. It corrects a medical problem. A woman does not need birth control to achieve sexual satisfaction. In some cases it might, like regulating menstrual cycles like I mentioned earlier. If a woman is having her period 25 days a month, and a cycle of birth control pills can help her return to a normal cycle, that is a medical necessity. And none of this prevents her from buying her own. Just like men have to buy condoms.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 02:46 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
(13-11-2016 12:14 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Restricted birth control?

No.

Pay for your own birth control without taxpayer assistance?

I think that's a yes.

Some people take birth control because if they get pregnant it would kill them. Some take it because it is known to lower the chances of ovarian cancer by almost 40%. Other women take it because it eases horrible cramps or bleeding.

There you go again, thinking like a 12 year old.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 02:51 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
(13-11-2016 02:46 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 12:14 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Restricted birth control?

No.

Pay for your own birth control without taxpayer assistance?

I think that's a yes.

Some people take birth control because if they get pregnant it would kill them. Some take it because it is known to lower the chances of ovarian cancer by almost 40%. Other women take it because it eases horrible cramps or bleeding.

There you go again, thinking like a 12 year old.

Please read the rest of the thread. I've said repeatedly that there are many medically necessary reasons for medical insurance or taxpayer money to cover birth control. But to prevent pregnancy for the purpose of a sex life? One should handle that herself. Just like I did buying condoms since I was 16 years old.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lord Dark Helmet's post
13-11-2016, 02:56 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
(13-11-2016 02:10 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 01:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Great, and while you're at it, stop covering prescriptions for ED for you old men, which are MORE often prescribed, AND COVERED in multiple forms, than ANY BC medication.
Oops forgot that, didn't you. Oh wait. You know NOTHING about health care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lar...l_products
Funny. You NEVER hear these conservative old farts whining about their coverage for Viaga.

I'm fine with insurance covering MEDICAL CONDITIONS. ED is a medical condition. I'm also fine with birth control pills being paid by insurance or Planned Parenthood for MEDICAL CONDITIONS (hormone control, heavy periods etc). But should taxpayers foot the bill for a woman's birth control not related to a medical condition? I don't think so. What's next, men wanting their insurance to pay for their monthly condom usage? No. Buy your own condoms/birth control.

ok, that does it. You not being able to fuck because you can't get an erection is more of a medical condition than 9 months of carrying a baby?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dom's post
13-11-2016, 03:03 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
(13-11-2016 02:45 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 02:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Sorry dude. It's not about you.
The FACT is billions of dollars are SPENT ON MEN and their sexual habits, FAR FAR MORE than on women and on BC.
And the ONLY thing you're whining about is women.
Yeah. It's perfectly obvious here what your values stem from.
IF you were a REAL conservative, you would have a consistent rational position.
You don't.

ED medicine enables a man to have sexual intercourse. It corrects a medical problem. A woman does not need birth control to achieve sexual satisfaction. In some cases it might, like regulating menstrual cycles like I mentioned earlier. If a woman is having her period 25 days a month, and a cycle of birth control pills can help her return to a normal cycle, that is a medical necessity. And none of this prevents her from buying her own. Just like men have to buy condoms.

Men don't *have* to buy condoms. Men don't *have* to have sex. You have no standard. You STILL have not answered the questions about costs and expenses. Apparently you WANT the more expensive options. That is irrational. Explain why you support the MORE expensive option, yet claim to be a conservative.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-11-2016, 03:05 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
(13-11-2016 02:51 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 02:46 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Some people take birth control because if they get pregnant it would kill them. Some take it because it is known to lower the chances of ovarian cancer by almost 40%. Other women take it because it eases horrible cramps or bleeding.

There you go again, thinking like a 12 year old.

Please read the rest of the thread. I've said repeatedly that there are many medically necessary reasons for medical insurance or taxpayer money to cover birth control. But to prevent pregnancy for the purpose of a sex life? One should handle that herself. Just like I did buying condoms since I was 16 years old.

And to repeat, it's not about you.
Viagra is the SAME thing you JUST disavowed, ... a "sex life".
You're irrational.
(ED is not necessarily an *absolute* condition... it varies. Viagra is about "a sex life" ... the very thing you just discounted.)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-11-2016, 03:12 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
(13-11-2016 03:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 02:51 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Please read the rest of the thread. I've said repeatedly that there are many medically necessary reasons for medical insurance or taxpayer money to cover birth control. But to prevent pregnancy for the purpose of a sex life? One should handle that herself. Just like I did buying condoms since I was 16 years old.

And to repeat, it's not about you.
Viagra is the SAME thing you JUST disavowed, ... a "sex life".
You're irrational.
(ED is not necessarily an *absolute* condition... it varies. Viagra is about "a sex life" ... the very thing you just discounted.)

No. You don't get it. Viagra is needed to complete the sex act. Birth control is not needed to complete the sex act. Viagra corrects a medical problem. Birth control PREVENTS pregnancy. It is not required for a woman to have sex. Therefore it is her choice to use it or not.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: