Skip to comments.I have a question on government and the birth control as a right issue?
Posted on 03/28/2014 5:51:06 PM PDT by stirrinthepuddin
I have been wondering why this argument has never been brought up by the pro life folks? (as far as I know)
How about picnics?
What I am getting at is this: If a man and a woman aren't having sex to reproduce .. wouldn't it then be considered a form of recreation?
The government wants to help you avoid the terrible fate of being burdened with a baby. This is usually not a likely outcome of a picnic (unless it’s a really good picnic).
Liberals and the government are immune to rational argument.
“wouldn’t it then be considered a form of recreation?”
It depends on whether they are good at it.
This gives a whole new meaning to “ball games”.
N00b! Is this your first posted thread? ... Whatta start! GOPe payroll, to divide conservatives for the Rovian strategy?
The feral gov’t probably subsidises all of those if you dig deep enough.
I think it is a reasonable question.
It is coming. If you do not belong to a party or a government, you have no say and no rights and you need to be “stabilized” by the “international community”. The empowered need no stabilization.
It is how it works. All recreations will not only be rationed by government, but when they are dispensed they will be mndatory pills to take too.
I have asked liberals this question many times.
When they can’t give an honest answer .. they resort to jokes.
Thank You mods!
My first post that didn’t have to be previewed first!
They would have to charge a recreation fee a nd issue a permit, maybe seasonal use only?
Insurers - HMOs (not all but many) covered BC but traditional insurance plans didn't. Discrimination against women! Insurers cover male impotence drugs but not BC for women. Discrimination against women!
I've encountered this as an RN working in insurance for 20+ years. Every time I encountered it I would try to explain what insurance is for. So I'll give you that synopsis here.
In physiology there is something called homeostasis which essentially means functioning within normal health. Health insurance is supposed to get a person back to homeostasis. When something causes the person to be unhealthy such as an acute appendix, to return to homeostasis usually involves an appendectomy. For males, it is part of the normal functioning of the human body for him to achieve an erection. So when for a physiological reason he cannot and drugs became available to counter that loss of function insurers covered them.
For women, ovulation followed by menstruation is the normal homeostasis process. BC interrupts that process so to cover BC it would be an instance of insurers covering something that was designed to interfere with normal functioning. But women didn't care because in today's society you have strength in being able to cry victim and get others to give you something for nothing. That is where we are today. Hope that clears it up for you. :)
Thank You Dad was my hero!
Finally, someone took such a simple question seriously!
Yet I have always argued erections are for fun, not for life. There is no need to have an erection. Only a want. Bogus that sexual dysfunction counts as a “medical” issue that warrants someone else paying.
I’d say the same if they’d actually have serious drugs for women’s problems (and we have them more), but it think this is all about allowing sex, sex, sex to keep the Idiocracy going.
Good post. And there is also the fact that erectile dysfunction medication and birth control pills are meant for opposite conditions, so why are they even compared in the first place??
They are compared because Barbara Boxer is an evil moron. She thinks the issue is “pills that women swallow.” Therefore, some pill that men swallow must be comparable.
You can be sure she has never given ten seconds to any effort to find out the rationale for the Catholic position on this issue.
Actually there is a need to have an erection, without them the population would soon end. I think I understand what you are trying to say but the “fun” aspect is an integral part of intercourse for both males and females. Imagine if, to have intercourse it was painful for both males and females. And having intercourse with the total lack of conceiving (sp?) has only become an expectation since the widespread use of BC began sometime in the 70s. Interestingly I recently heard on Glenn Beck’s show that the preponderance of those using erectile dysfunction drugs has now become the 30s and below age groups due to their use of porn.
It is not necessary for the INDIVIDUAL to live and as they say, thrive. No jokes from the peanut gallery and men who think they “need” this - no, you don’t; you want it. We’re talking whether the individual survives medically, not whole population prospects. Each individual DOES need to eat, and drink. Making sex like it is something absolutely necessary feeds into the myth and into Idiocracy and all kinds of illegitimacy, leading to children who didn’t ask to be in the crappy situations they are. We’ve already reached that point that it is showing. Men can pay for their own sex drugs.
“The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources were focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections.” - Idiocracy
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.