Possibility of contraception restrictions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-11-2016, 03:15 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
(13-11-2016 03:12 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 03:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

It's not required for a man to have sex.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GenesisNemesis's post
13-11-2016, 03:19 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
Ok, so you want all breathing men to be able to have sex.
You want women to stop taking birth control.
You want to abolish abortion.

What, so you can have many more unwanted children born to the poor so we can pay the moms to stay home and stay poor to raise said children in unfavorable environments?

[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
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
13-11-2016, 03:22 PM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2016 03:26 PM by cactus.)
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
If you can't get it up, you can still have awesome, flaccid, Viagra-less sex without the climax. Just ask the Mormons. Drinking Beverage

If we came from dust, then why is there still dust?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cactus's post
13-11-2016, 03:29 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
Conservative "logic"

No boners = serious medical condition in need of immediate medicinal attention

Pregnancy = apparently not a medical condition at all

Birth control used for any other reason besides just contraception = fuck you because of reasons



Fucking ignorant hogwash the lot of it

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
13-11-2016, 03:35 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
(13-11-2016 03:12 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 03:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Nope. It's not "needed" in many cases ... you know nothing about health care. It's prescribed as often for "quality of (partial)" as it is for "no erection", and Medicare is paying for harder dicks. You have NO CLUE what you're talking about. You are irrational, and have no standard.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
13-11-2016, 03:49 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
All I can say is - thank fuck I got fixed this year.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Escape Artist's post
13-11-2016, 04:06 PM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2016 04:09 PM by julep.)
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
(13-11-2016 03:19 PM)Dom Wrote:  Ok, so you want all breathing men to be able to have sex.
You want women to stop taking birth control.
You want to abolish abortion.

What, so you can have many more unwanted children born to the poor so we can pay the moms to stay home and stay poor to raise said children in unfavorable environments?

People who truly want to reduce government expenses would make the most effective birth control free (or insanely cheap) and easy to obtain, would promote comprehensive sex education from middle school onwards, and would make it easy for a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

The argument that ED is a healthcare issue but BC is not is idiotic. Healthcare has long covered preventive measures like annual physicals, vaccines, etc. The prospect of pregnancy for a woman is a health issue. A woman visiting a doctor to get a BC pill prescription or a surgical option is taking preventive action for her own health, and therefore BC should be covered by health insurance.

Unfortunately, unwillingness to cover BC for women has zero to do with health. Instead, it's about punishing and controlling women.

I think it's likely that the morning-after pill, IUDs, and all hormonal birth control are at risk under the coming administration. (as well as Roe v. Wade)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like julep's post
13-11-2016, 04:18 PM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2016 04:28 PM by GirlyMan.)
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.
....
But should taxpayers foot the bill for a woman's birth control not related to a medical condition? I don't think so.

And once again demonstrating the Republicans have no fucking clue how to recognize the unintended consequences of their legislation, this will inevitably lead to many more children on SNAP and Medicaid costing the taxpayers a hell of a lot more than $5-10/month for birth control ($150/month per kid for 18 years = $32,400 in MD just for SNAP) . Genius.

(13-11-2016 02:10 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  What's next, men wanting their insurance to pay for their monthly condom usage? No. Buy your own condoms/birth control.

Your insurance company will happily pay for a vasectomy for you. They'll probably even waive the copay.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GirlyMan's post
13-11-2016, 04:22 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
Nobody HAS to have sex...........


But, they're probably going to.

....

So, just think of tax payer funded birth control - as heading off an unwanted child on welfare.........................

.....

Everybody wins.....................

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
13-11-2016, 04:34 PM
RE: Possibility of contraception restrictions?
(13-11-2016 04:06 PM)julep Wrote:  I think it's likely that the morning-after pill, IUDs, and all hormonal birth control are at risk under the coming administration.

They don't realize they will never control the series of tubes.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: