|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
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.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 216 of 526:
|
Feb 28 17:49 UTC 2006 |
I've always found the "Viagra vs. birth control pills" argument to be a
little on the silly side for a variety of reasons:
- ED is a disease, while fertility is not.
- Viagra is a new medication for which cheap generic versions are not
available. BCPs are old, available in generic versions, and therefore
cheap
- Poor and lower-middle-class people can get BCPs for free (PP offers
such a program, for example.)
- Not all health insurance covers Viagra anyway; it's expensive and there
is a perception (quite possibly an accurate one) that many people use
it recreationally rather than out of medical necessity. The trend is
toward dropping coverage for it, both by private and public insurers.
I think it would be a nice idea for health insurance plans to cover BCPs
given how cheap they are and how expensive pregnancy is, but that's
their call to make given what their actuaries come up with. I don't see
what it has to do with covering treatment for ED, and reading misogyny
into it is just absurd.
|
edina
|
|
response 217 of 526:
|
Feb 28 17:53 UTC 2006 |
Maybe misogyny is a strong word. Having been on the side where insurance will
cover a vasectomy, but not BCP seemed unfair. Sure, they will cover tubal
ligation as well, but good luck getting a dr to do it when you young. It's
just an odd thing.
|
tod
|
|
response 218 of 526:
|
Feb 28 18:02 UTC 2006 |
re #204
I see prolifers with their disgusting billboards every week standing out in
front of clinics. While you're talking about being trashed online on some
website forum, I'm talking about real life people bullying neighborhoods.
And yes, in some cases like Florida, there is the occassional gunman that
kills a doctor and innocent bystander.
It isn't just Seattle where I've seen this. I've seen these prolife nutters
all around the country. This goes back at least 2 decades for me of seeing
these shameless people spewing their hate.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 219 of 526:
|
Feb 28 18:09 UTC 2006 |
It seems pretty nice for companies to provide the same coverage for
vasectomy and having your tubes tied, given that the procedure for women
is more involved and more expensive.
If/when the male BCP comes out, I suppose insurance companies will
likely cover it the same way that they cover the female version, although
like any new drug it will be more expensive at first. This leads to a
new hypothesis I'd like to pose:
If the male BCP is more expensive or harder to get than the female
BCP, people will cry misogyny and claim that economic pressures are
forcing women to be the ones who disrupt their hormones and incur
additional risks for the sake of birth control. On the other hand, if
the male BCP is cheaper or easier to get than the female BCP, people
will cry misogyny and claim that men are being given preferential access
to reproductive freedom.
|
edina
|
|
response 220 of 526:
|
Feb 28 18:10 UTC 2006 |
Point taken.
|
tod
|
|
response 221 of 526:
|
Feb 28 18:13 UTC 2006 |
Condoms should be tax deductible.
|
keesan
|
|
response 222 of 526:
|
Feb 28 18:17 UTC 2006 |
I am not required to pay extra for health insurance that covers things like
birth control and pregnancy. All the above comments seem to assume that
health insurance is free.
Since when has sex been a medical necessity?
|
edina
|
|
response 223 of 526:
|
Feb 28 18:17 UTC 2006 |
I wholeheartedly agree. Which is why in may places, they are free.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 224 of 526:
|
Feb 28 18:46 UTC 2006 |
Re #221, Condoms can be reimbursed with pre-tax dollars if you have a
flexible spending account. It's not quite the same thing but it has a
similar effect.
Re #222, I think most people would consider sex to be a "major life
function."
|
tod
|
|
response 225 of 526:
|
Feb 28 18:46 UTC 2006 |
re #222
Since when has sex been a medical necessity?
It is a good sign of mental health.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 226 of 526:
|
Feb 28 19:06 UTC 2006 |
Part of the issue is the type of hormonal birth control. Some
brands/versions work better than others. My insurance covers the generic
brand of Alesse as a lowest tier, Mircette as a second tier and Desogen
as a third tier. In my particular case- Alesse gave me migraines, so I
can't take it. Mircette caused massive mood swings and depression.
Desogen worked the best, but it too had it's negative side effects.
However, at $30 a month? Every month? I couldn't afford it.
Those are pretty much the only three that I saw covered. There are at
least 15 more (Ortho, Ortho Tri-cyclen, Ortho-Low, Yasmin, and on and
on) and some are monophasic, others not. Some work for a woman, some
don't. Yet with my insurance I only have three options.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 227 of 526:
|
Feb 28 20:12 UTC 2006 |
Compare
"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."
to
One thing I've learned about conservatism is its rabid attacks on people
with views opposing theirs, at least when it comes to 2nd amendment rights
and related issues.
and we see that the first, which was stated here, is nothing but a
poke-in-the-eye and gives no basis for beieving it. Therefore it seems only
to have expressed mindless hate.
|