|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
happyboy
|
|
response 191 of 526:
| 
Feb 27 21:55 UTC 2006 |
bru: book, chapter, verse, AND version of the bobble, please.
|
slynne
|
|
response 192 of 526:
|
Feb 27 21:55 UTC 2006 |
hell, I would like to see him go to a pro-life rally and say that he
thinks that *birth-control* is ok
|
happyboy
|
|
response 193 of 526:
|
Feb 27 22:02 UTC 2006 |
nharmon makes the baby jesus fetus cry.
><
-- <--- stern republican look.
|
jep
|
|
response 194 of 526:
|
Feb 27 22:03 UTC 2006 |
I really wonder, am I perceived as a "slut hater"? I keep addressing
that accusation (and variations on it), because people keep posting
about how all anti-abortion advocates are of that mindset.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 195 of 526:
|
Feb 27 22:04 UTC 2006 |
i think you hate poor people, passively anyway.
|
tod
|
|
response 196 of 526:
|
Feb 27 22:20 UTC 2006 |
re #189
Birth certificates have nothing to do with when life begins; you have a birth
certificate when you are born alive.
Clear as mud, right? Born ALIVE. That means Living aka LIFE.
Before a birth, the woman gets to decide. Its that simple.
Live with it.
|
scholar
|
|
response 197 of 526:
|
Feb 27 22:55 UTC 2006 |
i hate poor people. :(
|
happyboy
|
|
response 198 of 526:
|
Feb 27 22:57 UTC 2006 |
yeah...:(
|
marcvh
|
|
response 199 of 526:
|
Feb 27 23:09 UTC 2006 |
Re #194: who said that "all" anti-abortion advocates are slut-haters?
Certainly not me. I said "most" and I explained how I reached that
conclusion.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 200 of 526:
|
Feb 27 23:41 UTC 2006 |
on the other hand i really like sluts, even poor sluts.
POOR SLUTS LIKE SCHOLAR :L:L:>
|
jadecat
|
|
response 201 of 526:
|
Feb 28 00:35 UTC 2006 |
resp:194 John, no, I don't think you come off as a slut hater. I just
think that there ARE some in the pro-life camp that are. You don't
happen to be one of them.
|
mary
|
|
response 202 of 526:
|
Feb 28 02:08 UTC 2006 |
We are such a conflicted society when it comes to sex. We have church
leaders trying to make abstinence the only birth control taught to kids
and yet priests can't abstain from having sex with the kids. Many see it
as morally wrong for two people deeply in love to have sex outside of
marriage and yet feel it's a wife's obligation to have intercourse whether
she wants to or not. A father can freak out and refuse to let his 17 year
old daughter out of the house wearing her low cut jeans, then he wanders
to his office to watch porno videos of 18 year old girls having it on with
dildos. Aren't those 18 year olds someone's daughter? Impotence drugs
are so popular that the advertising budgets alone, in the US, was almost
half a billion dollars last year. That's a lot of encouragement to get it
up. But if that sperm hits a target, and the woman wants to us EC to
prevent a pregnancy? Oh, my, that's a problem. Interesting the line is
drawn there, with the woman, 1 and not with "if God had wanted you to
shoot sperm he would have given you a rod."
We love and need sex but it's all wrapped up with power and guilt and
feeling dirty, and that spills over into our politics. And not much
good can come from anything with that much baggage.
|
slynne
|
|
response 203 of 526:
|
Feb 28 02:47 UTC 2006 |
I have to admit that I think that most people who are "pro-life" believe
that an unborn fetus's life is more important than a woman's life. That
is slightly different than beliving that they wish to regulate the
sexuality of women but it isnt exactly something positive either. There
are exceptions of course and I certainly hope you are one of those
people, jep.
And I think that while there are a lot of people on the pro-life side
who arent like that, "slut-hating" very often comes out in abortion
discussions. You see it when people say that women could just close
their legs of they dont want to have kids. You also see this when they
try to draft laws that do not include any provisions for the health of
the pregnant woman.
Here is something to consider. Hormonal birth control pills often have
medical uses other than birth control. I know a few non sexually active
women who have taken them to help regulate excessively heavy periods.
Periods that were so heavy, they were anemic or in danger of becoming
so. It turns out that birth control pills often have a health care
function other than contraception. But they tended not to be covered by
insurance partly because of pressure from Right to Life groups who were
(I guess) afraid that women would rise up and start having sex all over
the place.
From _How The Pro-Life Movement Saved America_
"Take, for example, the campaigns started in the nineties (which
continue today)to get health insurance companies to cover contraception.
In 1990, the birth control pill had been around for more than thirty
years. Even though 82 percent of all American woman born since 1945 have
used the Pill, it, along with all other contraceptives, was still not
included in most insurance plans. Consequently, American women were
still paying for contraception out of pocket, amounting to 68 percent
more in health care expenses than men. In 1996, the Federal Drug
Administration (FDA) approved the erection drug Viagra. Viagra obviously
had no "health care" or "prevention" functions, yet it took just less
than two months for half of all prescriptions of Viagra to be covered by
health insurers"
What does that say about our culture? That men still have power than
women. That men's sexuality is to be glorified and encouraged while
women's should be discouraged?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 204 of 526:
|
Feb 28 03:32 UTC 2006 |
One thing I've learned about liberalism is its rabid attacks on people
with views opposing theirs, at least when it comes to 2nd amendment
rights and related issues. I'll tell you I have never been flamed as bad
as when I represented a pro-2ndAmendment viewpoint on
democraticunderground.com. It was totally unexpected, and unbelievably
vulgar.
I contrast that to how anti-2ndAmendment visitors to websites such as
MCRGO.org (when they had an open forum) were treated. That was with
respect, dignity and attention to the points that visitor was making. It
was politely refuted, with no flaming. It was really a something to see
because I remember where a school teacher from Ann Arbor, who was an
ardent supporter of gun control, changed her mind after having hearing
the opposing viewpoint. She went on to become an NRA instructor, and
teaches self-defense classes to women, as well as an advocate for
women's rights in abuse cases.
I really wonder how someone like me would be treated at a pro-life rally
versus one for pro-choice. Would the pro-lifers be the nasty bigots you
make them out to be...calling me a baby killer, or saying I'm against
god? Because of all of the pro-lifers I have ever met, not one had such
deep seated hatefull feelings. On the other hand, how would I be treated
at a pro-choice rally? I'm not sure, hopefully much better than some of
the pro-choicers on here have treated me. It would be interesting to
find out, and maybe when a time comes where I'm not so busy, I will.
Here is what I do know. One of my best friends from high school is a
practicing catholic. His mother, also catholic, is very pro-life. The
most magnificant thing was how he told me that her pro-life advocacy was
in the form of counseling and helping women with deep emotional guilt
and depression over abortion. She doesn't judge them, or shun them, or
act as thought they need to be punished. She just helps them. Helps them
find psychological help, and in some cases helps them find shelters. I
think that is the biggest reason why I think most pro-lifers are not
"slut-haters" like some of you people make them out to be. It is also
why I think opposing viewpoints would be more welcome at a pro-life rally.
|
slynne
|
|
response 205 of 526:
|
Feb 28 04:08 UTC 2006 |
I think you can find rabid closed minded people on all sides of any
issue.
|
naftee
|
|
response 206 of 526:
|
Feb 28 04:17 UTC 2006 |
i think you can find people rabid for slynne on all sides of the continent
|
marcvh
|
|
response 207 of 526:
|
Feb 28 04:45 UTC 2006 |
Re #204: Once again, Nathan misses the point. I wasn't talking about
whether the pro-life people would be unkind to you, or to anyone for
that matter. I was talking about whether they would agree with your
characterization of your views as being properly termed pro-life.
|
scholar
|
|
response 208 of 526:
|
Feb 28 06:01 UTC 2006 |
Mary's thesis that we're conflicted about sex was backed up with many
examples, none of which seemed to have anything to do with conflict.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 209 of 526:
|
Feb 28 13:00 UTC 2006 |
Marc, I was responding to slynne,... not you.
|
twenex
|
|
response 210 of 526:
|
Feb 28 13:16 UTC 2006 |
One thing I've learned about liberalism is its rabid attacks on people
with views opposing theirs, at least when it comes to 2nd amendment
rights and related issues.
One thing I've learned about Nathan is his typically conservative inability
to spot massive hypocrisy right under his nose, at least when it comes to,
oh, issues.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 211 of 526:
|
Feb 28 13:21 UTC 2006 |
One thing I've learned about twenex is not to respond to his hit-and-
run tactics in BBS.
|
twenex
|
|
response 212 of 526:
|
Feb 28 13:23 UTC 2006 |
A. You did. B. How can you but hit-and-run in BBS?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 213 of 526:
|
Feb 28 13:26 UTC 2006 |
What hypocrisy is under my nose? I'm not Tucan Sam you know.
|
jep
|
|
response 214 of 526:
|
Feb 28 13:45 UTC 2006 |
re resp:202: Nothing good comes of some of the baggage, but sex itself
is still just fine! Some of the hangups and dirtyness and hidden-ness
can be kind of fun, too.
Regarding the differences between contraception prescriptions and
Viagra and it's competitors... there is some sense to it, in that
erectile dysfunction is a disability, whereas pregnancy is not and
having sex is not. Insurance does not provide for every need. I buy
my own soap, cars, and vitamin pills (well I would if I used them).
I imagine the justification used is that many times more contraception
is used than Viagra.
Overall it does not make a lot of sense to me any more than it does to
anyone else.
BTW, my health insurance (MCARE) pays for 50% of contraception just as
it does any prescription. It pays for 90% of the costs of
sterilization and also for 90% of abortion. 50% of "infertility
assessment". 100% of pre and post natal care and child pediatrics up
through age 6. Is that about how most employer-sponsored plans work?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 215 of 526:
|
Feb 28 13:47 UTC 2006 |
As an aside, I know a woman who had developed cysts in her uterus- she
eventually had to have surgery to have them removed. Afterwards she was
prescirbed birth control pills- as that was standard procedure and is
thought that it will help ward off the possibility of uterine cancer.
Then she was a student, and without insurance (of a useful nature) so
she started going to Planned Parenthood for her pills. The grief she got
from pro-life protestors every time she went was unbelievable. They
called her every name in the book- slut, whore and so one. Yet they also
begged her not to abort her baby, and so on. The woman wasn't even
having sex- she was trying to avoid cancer!
Yet the pro-life protestors assumed that since she was going to PP she
MUST be there to have an abortion. (After a while this woman griped that
she wished she WAS pregnant just so she could have an abortion and piss
them off.) That majority of women going to PP aren't there to have
abortions, but the protestors don't seem to acknowledge that at all.
So Nathan, those are the people I tend to first think of when I think of
pro-lifers. While I *know* they're not all like that- I can't forget
there are those that are.
|