Your "belief" is not more important than my reality.

[Saint Peter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ36S3d1CaU

 

[RobDownSouth]

I have an urge to eat a crate of Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. If I do that on a daily basis, I'll get fat and that will be my own fault.

Eventually you'll move your bowels, and the consequences of your actions will be mitigated.

Babbies, on the other hand, are a "gift that keep on giving".

Your analogy is specious at best, ridiculous at worst.

The thing is, our life is filled with impulses and urges. Some of them are good for us - the urge to breathe or move out of the way of heavy objects for instance - while others are bad for us. And then there are some that involve a risk. Sex is one of those, and the risks are well documented. I don't see why people engaging in it should be exempt from taking full responsibility for their choice.

Good luck on promoting your "sex should be restricted to those who can afford the consequence of accidental pregnancy" position. I doubt you'll find widespread acceptance, with the exception of the "punish the slut" old man demographic.

 

[bronzeage]

But my point is, she knows that ahead of time. The girl is fully aware of that possibility before she allows the neighborhood deadbeat to pound his well-worn cojones against her perineum without protection.

By spreading her legs and not taking her anti-pregnancy-Bat-pill or some other type of BC, she is making an informed choice to accept that risk in exchange for her personal convenience. And if she's not paying for my Peanut Butter Cups, why should I pay for her sex?

Because you'll be paying to feed the child of another man, if you don't. Does that sound better?

 

[Phelia]

Has anyone that is against birth control being covered gave thought to when it's taken, but not to prevent pregnancy?

Both my girls had to go on it, EVEN though they weren't sexually active due to health reasons.

Should my insurance not cover a medically needed medicine so my girls wouldn't have to bleed for 40 days straight? AND if you say yes, your insurance should cover it for that, they isn't that kinda splitting hairs...stopping a baby being made, stopping someone from constant bleeding? I kinda don't see the difference in that.

so if insurance shouldn't have to cover birth control, then I should have to pay the $160 a month to pay for it out of my pocket so my girls wouldn't bleed constantly? $160 on TOP of the $5,000 year we pay in premiums? Where's the fairness in that?

To be fair, this is not about all contraceptives, and coverage of birth control pills to treat hormonal conditions is not in question. While some IUDs (which are in question) can be used to treat medical conditions and menstrual irregularity, pills like Plan B and ella are strictly contraceptive. They prevent pregnancies, end of story. They do not terminate pregnancies, which is the issue at hand.

You began the thread, so I will no longer post.

Thank you.

 

[smallgirl]

To be fair, this is not about all contraceptives, and coverage of birth control pills to treat hormonal conditions is not in question. While some IUDs (which are in question) can be used to treat medical conditions and menstrual irregularity, pills like Plan B and ella are strictly contraceptive. They prevent pregnancies, end of story. They do not terminate pregnancies, which is the issue at hand.



Thank you.

I understand that, but IMO all contraceptives are birth control. Whether it is a pack of pill or an IUD or Plan B. I don't see a woman being pregnant it be called having an abortion if she has unprotected sex and 2 days later takes a Plan B.
Birth control is birth control...IMO. I don't see the fairness of covering it for people like my girls and not covering for me to prevent pregnancy.

 

[Phelia]

Do you accept post dated cheques?

Well, you're Canadian, so I just need to see your health card!

A million dollars for a piece of ass?


Hmmmm.




Alright.

http://global3.memecdn.com/money-pussy_o_1796459.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ36S3d1CaU

I love Garfunkel and Oates! Perfect.

 

[about_average]

Now address the points at hand or leave the thread, please.

You began the thread, so I will no longer post.

Thank you.

Hmmm...wonder it that would work in my World Vision thread.

Telling that she'd rather not post than actually address the issues.

 

[Lorilei]

But my point is, she knows that ahead of time. The girl is fully aware of that possibility before she allows the neighborhood deadbeat to pound his well-worn cojones against her perineum without protection.

By spreading her legs and not taking her anti-pregnancy-Bat-pill or some other type of BC, she is making an informed choice to accept that risk in exchange for her personal convenience. And if she's not paying for my Peanut Butter Cups, why should I pay for her sex?

Please do shut up with your antiquated slut-shaming bullshit.

 

[Phelia]

Hmmm...wonder it that would work in my World Vision thread.

Telling that she'd rather not post than actually address the issues.

No, that's different. This thread is about HUMAN RIGHTS. That thread is just about the gays, and they will have plenty of time to do whatever they want while they're burning in hell for eternity.

Please do shut up with your antiquated slut-shaming bullshit.

Okay, never mind. I just decided that I'm going gay for Lori. Cuz, you know, it's a choice.

 

[Lorilei]

Sex promotes good overall health.

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health

http://www.womansday.com/sex-relationships/sex-tips/8-surprising-health-benefits-of-sex-102017

http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-Having-Sex-20-Good-Health-Reasons-71825.shtml

 

[Lorilei]

No, that's different. This thread is about HUMAN RIGHTS. That thread is just about the gays, and they will have plenty of time to do whatever they want while they're burning in hell for eternity.



Okay, never mind. I just decided that I'm going gay for Lori. Cuz, you know, it's a choice.

 

[StrangeLife]

Eventually you'll move your bowels, and the consequences of your actions will be mitigated.

Babbies, on the other hand, are a "gift that keep on giving".

Your analogy is specious at best, ridiculous at worst.

It was a response to a comment that "sex is an impulse and as such an involuntary act." I countered that we have many urges and we are responsible for acting on them.... sex included.

Good luck on promoting your "sex should be restricted to those who can afford the consequence of accidental pregnancy" position. I doubt you'll find widespread acceptance, with the exception of the "punish the slut" old man demographic.

I never said that. I only said, that I don't want to pay for birth control for girls I don't get to have sex with. Is that unfair of me?

Because you'll be paying to feed the child of another man, if you don't. Does that sound better?

Yes it does. Because she is the one facing the consequences of her actions and child support will catch up with the guy eventually.

Sometimes the right way isn't the cheapest way - I'd rather help feed a child than help pay for her sexlife. It's not fair that she's getting a free ride.... literally... on me. Unless she actually gets it "on me".... in which case I will pay for birth control (and the funeral, when my wife finds out).

 

[RobDownSouth]

I never said that. I only said, that I don't want to pay for birth control for girls I don't get to have sex with. Is that unfair of me?

Should women be forced to pay for your viagra?

You seem to be reducing sex to a financial transaction, which fits nicely into the "women as whores" philosophy.

 

[StrangeLife]

Please do shut up with your antiquated slut-shaming bullshit.

I'm not shaming anybody Lori. I love sluts - I wish we had more of them. Sex is great, a healthy work-out and good for the soul. It's well worth the price of birth control, which is so cheap these days that everybody can afford it.

And that's my point, right there.

 

[StrangeLife]

Should women be forced to pay for your viagra?

No they shouldn't - not Viagra specifically. But erectile dysfunction is a disease and should be covered as such.

You seem to be reducing sex to a financial transaction, which fits nicely into the "women as whores" philosophy.

Sex is a leisure activity (which I highly approve of) and I do not look down on people engaging in it. So you can forget about fitting me into your little Santorum'esqe box.

But I don't want to be forced to pay for other people hobbies. I'm not giving you a free RC chopper either and you can pay your own tuba if you're joining a polka group.

 

[bronzeage]

Yes it does. Because she is the one facing the consequences of her actions and child support will catch up with the guy eventually.

Sometimes the right way isn't the cheapest way - I'd rather help feed a child than help pay for her sexlife. It's not fair that she's getting a free ride.... literally... on me. Unless she actually gets it "on me".... in which case I will pay for birth control (and the funeral, when my wife finds out).

If you want fair, go watch an "everybody plays" T ball league. If you want a life where nobody pays for something other people use, go live off the grid and don't even think if sneaking back within sight of a street light or a paved road.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If you want fair, go watch an "everybody plays" T ball league. If you want a life where nobody pays for something other people use, go live off the grid and don't even think of sneaking back within sight of a street light or a paved road.

The "final solution" that glibertarian Darwinists such as the Chief and l'Eyer are working towards.

 

[Bert_Fegg]

No they shouldn't - not Viagra specifically. But erectile dysfunction is a disease and should be covered as such.

It's a disease that will never affect a woman, so your own position demands that you don't support its coverage for the exact same reason - Plus just like the girl knows ahead of time that sex can get her pregnant - any guy knows that sooner or later his dick isn't going to get hard on demand - we've got plenty of time to save up

Did I just detect a thought crossing your mind, to the effect that erectile dysfunction can affect guys unexpectedly and at a younger age than is usual for that condition? Well if it did then slap yourself on the forehead from me and repeat three times "So can pregnancy, shit for brains."

*edit* your position also requires you to not cover treatment of STIs for the same reason

 

[Saint Peter]

Don't expect me to pay for your Birkenstocks!

 

[Wrong Element]

Lorilei's ass-kicking in this thread has been glorious to behold.

 

[Saint Peter]

Don't expect me to pay for her ass-licking!

 

[Saint Peter]

Oh.


Never mind.

 

[Lorilei]

Don't expect me to pay for your Birkenstocks!

You'll pay and you'll like it!

Lorilei's ass-kicking in this thread has been glorious to behold.

*curtsy*

Don't expect me to pay for her ass-licking!

You'll pay and you'll like it!

 

[about_average]

No they shouldn't - not Viagra specifically. But erectile dysfunction is a disease and should be covered as such.

So if a woman is a sex addict birth control should be covered? After all, addiction is an illness.

 

[RobDownSouth]

No they shouldn't - not Viagra specifically. But erectile dysfunction is a disease and should be covered as such.

Sex is a leisure activity (which I highly approve of) and I do not look down on people engaging in it. So you can forget about fitting me into your little Santorum'esqe box.

But I don't want to be forced to pay for other people hobbies. I'm not giving you a free RC chopper either and you can pay your own tuba if you're joining a polka group.

But if sex is a "leisure activity" should others be forced to pay for your "leisure activity" if viagra is needed, especially those who don't require it?