So I saw someone retweet a photo of a rally that the (in)famous Sandra Fluke hosted the other day (the crowd was in the tens... if not slightly less then ten) and it reminded me of the whole mess about how people are demanding contraceptives be covered by one's insurance, Obama even brought it up at the second debate. I want this cleared up because I'm not quite sure what I think about it over all... but I can say I do think it's equine gak that a group's whining and crying about having to pay for oral contraceptives... which let's face it aren't a medical necessity when my little sister has to pay for her insulin, which she will die without. Seems like a really screwed up priority list to me.

My wife was prescribed oral contraceptives for a medical condition not connected with contraception.

In my view your sister should be helped with her insulin, but that is not The American Way.

I agree KM. But I should point out, that like in KKs case, there are times when contraceptives are prescribed for medical reasons.

Were it up to me, it would be case by case. If it's needed for other medical reasons, then yeah its covered. If you just want it to not get knocked up, sorry, you're paying. Same thing with ED pills, and other medications that have multiple uses.

How interesting that we should disapprove the use of medication to get women pregnant and the use medication to stop women getting pregnant.

Contraception is cheaper than childcare (and indeed foster care, etc).

You guys really need to get yourselves an NHS. Contraceptive pills are free (without even a prescription charge). ED pills can be given on NHS prescription where you only need to pay the prescription charge (about £7 - only available if you have one of a select number of illnesses), whilst you can also get it on a private prescription (where you pay for the cost of the drug and possibly also the costs of prescription).

Plus you can still pay a fortune for private insurance too

Ya'll make it sound like Contraceptive are hard to get and that Government is needed to ensure access...

That is so far from the truth, its not even funny.

1) It's cheap and easy to get

2) Yeah, some religious institution don't cover it (except for off label use), but, see #1

3) This controversy is purely political (PP, Obamacare, Roe vs Wade, etc...)... it has nothing to do with with "access" to contraceptive.

It is definitely cheap and easy to get except when it isn't.

My wife needs them for a medical condition. Fortunately it's free on the NHS.

You are offering a false choice.

Yes, your sister should have her insulin covered for. Anything needed as bare necessities should be garanteed, even food.

Yes, women should have access to contraceptives regardless of their financial conditions.

I assume more people have issues with their contraceptive than with their insulin, which is why you don't have politicos using that issue.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I saw someone retweet a photo of a rally that the (in)famous Sandra Fluke hosted the other day (the crowd was in the tens... if not slightly less then ten) and it reminded me of the whole mess about how people are demanding contraceptives be covered by one's insurance, Obama even brought it up at the second debate. I want this cleared up because I'm not quite sure what I think about it over all... but I can say I do think it's equine gak that a group's whining and crying about having to pay for oral contraceptives... which let's face it aren't a medical necessity when my little sister has to pay for her insulin, which she will die without. Seems like a really screwed up priority list to me.

If this is the person I think it is the issue wasn't so much free contraceptives as free contraceptives from an instiution run by people adamantly against contraceptives of any kind. (Georgetown)
If Georgetown offers 3rd party student health insurance not affiliated with the Church or School then there really wouldn't be an argument to be had. Since my understanding was the demand was made of the school I feel they are well within their rights to tell her to pound sand. shrug.

But, students needs to feth!

Perhaps people whose religion forbids them from using something should not go into a line of business in which they may be required to provide a client with the thing they dislike.

Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps people whose religion forbids them from using something should not go into a line of business in which they may be required to provide a client with the thing they dislike.

Pretty much this.

EDIT: argument about tacit agreements as a requisite for being included in a society vs. freedom of religion to do whatever they want without responsibility in 3... 2... 1...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I agree KM. But I should point out, that like in KKs case, there are times when contraceptives are prescribed for medical reasons.

Were it up to me, it would be case by case. If it's needed for other medical reasons, then yeah its covered. If you just want it to not get knocked up, sorry, you're paying. Same thing with ED pills, and other medications that have multiple uses.

See now with doing a brief amount of research I think I can agree with this latter suggestion. If it's a medical necessity why not cover it? If it's optional though, and you're making the choice to do it on your own, simply for the convenience of using oral contraceptives vs. alternative methods to offer yourself increased quality of life... yeah you should be on your own. I buy a year's supply of contacts every January, between the exam and the contacts themselves it's fairly expensive, I could easily just get a pair of glasses instead, but I prefer these, so I willingly fork out for it.

Planned Parenthood says that Birth Control pills cost $15-50 a month. So that's $180-600 a year, and I'm guessing the $50 is the type of stuff that's super pricey to account for medical conditions of some sort. Apparently Target carries offers Tri-Sprintec, the generic form of the birth-control pill Ortho Tri-Cyclen for $9 even. That's not factoring in other methods of birth control which are effective and cheaper. (My ex for example preferred alternative methods because she didn't like fething with her hormones)

Meanwhile my cost for contact lenses is $280 without counting the eye appointment. My contacts greatly effect my quality of life, but I'm not asking any one to pay for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I saw someone retweet a photo of a rally that the (in)famous Sandra Fluke hosted the other day (the crowd was in the tens... if not slightly less then ten) and it reminded me of the whole mess about how people are demanding contraceptives be covered by one's insurance, Obama even brought it up at the second debate. I want this cleared up because I'm not quite sure what I think about it over all... but I can say I do think it's equine gak that a group's whining and crying about having to pay for oral contraceptives... which let's face it aren't a medical necessity when my little sister has to pay for her insulin, which she will die without. Seems like a really screwed up priority list to me.

If this is the person I think it is the issue wasn't so much free contraceptives as free contraceptives from an instiution run by people adamantly against contraceptives of any kind. (Georgetown)
If Georgetown offers 3rd party student health insurance not affiliated with the Church or School then there really wouldn't be an argument to be had. Since my understanding was the demand was made of the school I feel they are well within their rights to tell her to pound sand. shrug.

Yeah I didn't quite get that either, I also want to know where she pulled $3000 from... what type of contraceptives was she using? Did they contain fragments of the true cross or something?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
what type of contraceptives was she using? Did they contain fragments of the true cross or something?

Is that why religious people get so bent out of shape when it comes to providing people access to contraceptives and other birth control related items?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps people whose religion forbids them from using something should not go into a line of business in which they may be required to provide a client with the thing they dislike.

Or they could just not offer the product? If I open a gas station and I despise Pepsi products I don't have to carry their product. Doesn't mean I can't go into business selling sodas, snack food and gasoline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
what type of contraceptives was she using? Did they contain fragments of the true cross or something?

Is that why religious people get so bent out of shape when it comes to providing people access to contraceptives and other birth control related items?

That's my new theory!

Generally speaking yes birth control of all types is inexpensive and easy to attain.

Most universities, public health clinics, and low cost community health clinics, planned parenthood give condoms away for free. Take as many as you like, seriously.

If you insist on birth control pills, cost between $4 and $20 a month. Stop having drive through coffee or Starbucks and you have the money.

KM, I am sorry to hear that your sister is having difficulties getting her insulin.

Have you considered contacting the maker of the insulin? Most pharmaceutical companies have a low income/people in need program to obtain their medications for a much lower cost? It generally involves filling out a couple forms.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Or they could just not offer the product? If I open a gas station and I despise Pepsi products I don't have to carry their product. Doesn't mean I can't go into business selling sodas, snack food and gasoline.

No, because you're talking about a product with restricted access. Since you can't just buy various medical stuff without a prescription (and often insurance involvement) and you can't sell it without a license and training it's a lot harder to "just get it elsewhere". Therefore there's an expectation that if you get that license you're required to provide everything your customers need, not just the things you morally approve of. Don't like it? Don't go into business in that area.

Plus there's the fact that not being able to get Pepsi, even if you are magically in an area where you can't just go to the next gas station for it, is a trivial annoyance, while being unable to get birth control/abortions/whatever ranges from a major inconvenience (being unable to have sex even if you're married, which is not exactly good for a relationship) to a life-destroying event (having an unwanted child). The increased severity of the consequences means that it's entirely reasonable to expect that if you're providing medical services or products you must provide ALL required services and/or products.

Finally, let's not forget that in this specific case it was the employer refusing to offer coverage. It wasn't a case where you have free choice of competing insurance companies with a full range of policies to choose from, you're stuck with what your employer chooses to offer, and if you don't like it then too bad, your only alternative is to either go without insurance, or pay a ton of money for private insurance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps people whose religion forbids them from using something should not go into a line of business in which they may be required to provide a client with the thing they dislike.

Something I wholeheartedly agree with, here in Phoenix one of our Catholic Hospitals lost it's Catholic affiliation for like a year or two because they performed an emergency abortion to save a mothers life. The Bishop started a witchhunt that ended in St Joes getting their affiliation back and the nun he excommunicated welcomed back into the church and the board of directors. In the end it proved that as a healthcare facility care comes before religion, it was a good stance for both STJ's and the Sisters of Mercy to take.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
If you insist on birth control pills, cost between $4 and $20 a month. Stop having drive through coffee or Starbucks and you have the money.

While this might be true for the average single middle-class woman, it's not true for everyone. Not everyone can afford that coffee in the first place, and even $20/month can be a heavy burden when you're just barely getting by (or even falling into debt).

Free, freely-available birth control saves the taxpayers money overall, gives poor women better control over their lives and families, and can help out even better-off women who are in a temporary situation of restricted finances, like in college or unemployed.

There is no moral grounds on which NOT to provide it. it's in our rational self-interest in a society. The religious strictures of those who oppose it legitimately apply only to its personal USE. If your religion forbids using contraception, then it would be immoral to force you to personally use it. But it is also immoral for you to impose your religion on empoyees who do not share that religious belief. Which is functionally what you're doing if you refuse to provide coverage for your employees. Especially the poorer ones.

IME the best Catholics (to choose one example) I know are very concerned with the plight of the poor, and I'm honestly shocked that organizations which are opposed to abortion are not gangbusters in FAVOR of wider and easier access to contraception. It seems a no-brainer. The only explanation I can come up with for it is that it's not, in its essence, about contraception being bad. It's about making it more difficult for women to control their own bodies and reproduction.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Meanwhile my cost for contact lenses is $280 without counting the eye appointment. My contacts greatly effect my quality of life, but I'm not asking any one to pay for them.

Contact lenses are also, essentially, a vanity product. If being able to see was the most important element of the need you could get a pair of glasses much cheaper, probably multiple pairs.

@Peregrine - no doubt. See the $4 Wal-Mart option, and if that is too much $, see the free condom option.

Both the wal-mart and free condom options are government-subsidized.

 Ahtman wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Meanwhile my cost for contact lenses is $280 without counting the eye appointment. My contacts greatly effect my quality of life, but I'm not asking any one to pay for them.

Contact lenses are also, essentially, a vanity product. If being able to see was the most important element of the need you could get a pair of glasses much cheaper, probably multiple pairs.

And I said that in my post. It's simply to improve my quality of life. As has been pointed out there's contraceptives cheap and available that are just as valid solutions as the pill. Unless you have to get a prescription for a box rubbers now and I didn't notice. The pill's a lot simpler though, it improves quality of life over all and makes things easy.

For me there's a significant vision difference between my contacts and my glasses. This change in quality of life is worth the extra money so I pay it.

Contraceptive medication also can be/is used to regular hormones and otherwise improve QoL, and (as was discussed earlier) is frequently prescribed to treat serious medical conditions, like endometriosis. One of the things Fluke originally testified about was the experience one of her classmates had with such a condition and not having coverage.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
And I said that in my post. It's simply to improve my quality of life. As has been pointed out there's contraceptives cheap and available that are just as valid solutions as the pill. Unless you have to get a prescription for a box rubbers now and I didn't notice. The pill's a lot simpler though, it improves quality of life over all and makes things easy.

For me there's a significant vision difference between my contacts and my glasses. This change in quality of life is worth the extra money so I pay it.

However, your glasses aren't only 99.something% effective. By using the pill in combination with other birth control products you only increase your protection. And has been pointed out, paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for unwanted babies and children.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I agree KM. But I should point out, that like in KKs case, there are times when contraceptives are prescribed for medical reasons.

Were it up to me, it would be case by case. If it's needed for other medical reasons, then yeah its covered. If you just want it to not get knocked up, sorry, you're paying. Same thing with ED pills, and other medications that have multiple uses.

See now with doing a brief amount of research I think I can agree with this latter suggestion. If it's a medical necessity why not cover it? If it's optional though, and you're making the choice to do it on your own, simply for the convenience of using oral contraceptives vs. alternative methods to offer yourself increased quality of life... yeah you should be on your own. I buy a year's supply of contacts every January, between the exam and the contacts themselves it's fairly expensive, I could easily just get a pair of glasses instead, but I prefer these, so I willingly fork out for it.

Planned Parenthood says that Birth Control pills cost $15-50 a month. So that's $180-600 a year, and I'm guessing the $50 is the type of stuff that's super pricey to account for medical conditions of some sort. Apparently Target carries offers Tri-Sprintec, the generic form of the birth-control pill Ortho Tri-Cyclen for $9 even. That's not factoring in other methods of birth control which are effective and cheaper. (My ex for example preferred alternative methods because she didn't like fething with her hormones)

Meanwhile my cost for contact lenses is $280 without counting the eye appointment. My contacts greatly effect my quality of life, but I'm not asking any one to pay for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I saw someone retweet a photo of a rally that the (in)famous Sandra Fluke hosted the other day (the crowd was in the tens... if not slightly less then ten) and it reminded me of the whole mess about how people are demanding contraceptives be covered by one's insurance, Obama even brought it up at the second debate. I want this cleared up because I'm not quite sure what I think about it over all... but I can say I do think it's equine gak that a group's whining and crying about having to pay for oral contraceptives... which let's face it aren't a medical necessity when my little sister has to pay for her insulin, which she will die without. Seems like a really screwed up priority list to me.

If this is the person I think it is the issue wasn't so much free contraceptives as free contraceptives from an instiution run by people adamantly against contraceptives of any kind. (Georgetown)
If Georgetown offers 3rd party student health insurance not affiliated with the Church or School then there really wouldn't be an argument to be had. Since my understanding was the demand was made of the school I feel they are well within their rights to tell her to pound sand. shrug.

Yeah I didn't quite get that either, I also want to know where she pulled $3000 from... what type of contraceptives was she using? Did they contain fragments of the true cross or something?

Do you think that spectacles should be covered by insurance?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
As has been pointed out there's contraceptives cheap and available that are just as valid solutions as the pill.

Except those other solutions aren't just as valid, since they place responsibility in the other person's hands and require the woman to trust them that they're doing everything right. It's entirely reasonable for women to want access to birth control options that they control.

 Peregrine wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
As has been pointed out there's contraceptives cheap and available that are just as valid solutions as the pill.

Except those other solutions aren't just as valid, since they place responsibility in the other person's hands and require the woman to trust them that they're doing everything right. It's entirely reasonable for women to want access to birth control options that they control.

Yes clearly the diaphragm, spermicide, cervical cap, etc are ALL solely controlled and utilized by the other partner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I agree KM. But I should point out, that like in KKs case, there are times when contraceptives are prescribed for medical reasons.

Were it up to me, it would be case by case. If it's needed for other medical reasons, then yeah its covered. If you just want it to not get knocked up, sorry, you're paying. Same thing with ED pills, and other medications that have multiple uses.

See now with doing a brief amount of research I think I can agree with this latter suggestion. If it's a medical necessity why not cover it? If it's optional though, and you're making the choice to do it on your own, simply for the convenience of using oral contraceptives vs. alternative methods to offer yourself increased quality of life... yeah you should be on your own. I buy a year's supply of contacts every January, between the exam and the contacts themselves it's fairly expensive, I could easily just get a pair of glasses instead, but I prefer these, so I willingly fork out for it.

Planned Parenthood says that Birth Control pills cost $15-50 a month. So that's $180-600 a year, and I'm guessing the $50 is the type of stuff that's super pricey to account for medical conditions of some sort. Apparently Target carries offers Tri-Sprintec, the generic form of the birth-control pill Ortho Tri-Cyclen for $9 even. That's not factoring in other methods of birth control which are effective and cheaper. (My ex for example preferred alternative methods because she didn't like fething with her hormones)

Meanwhile my cost for contact lenses is $280 without counting the eye appointment. My contacts greatly effect my quality of life, but I'm not asking any one to pay for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I saw someone retweet a photo of a rally that the (in)famous Sandra Fluke hosted the other day (the crowd was in the tens... if not slightly less then ten) and it reminded me of the whole mess about how people are demanding contraceptives be covered by one's insurance, Obama even brought it up at the second debate. I want this cleared up because I'm not quite sure what I think about it over all... but I can say I do think it's equine gak that a group's whining and crying about having to pay for oral contraceptives... which let's face it aren't a medical necessity when my little sister has to pay for her insulin, which she will die without. Seems like a really screwed up priority list to me.

If this is the person I think it is the issue wasn't so much free contraceptives as free contraceptives from an instiution run by people adamantly against contraceptives of any kind. (Georgetown)
If Georgetown offers 3rd party student health insurance not affiliated with the Church or School then there really wouldn't be an argument to be had. Since my understanding was the demand was made of the school I feel they are well within their rights to tell her to pound sand. shrug.

Yeah I didn't quite get that either, I also want to know where she pulled $3000 from... what type of contraceptives was she using? Did they contain fragments of the true cross or something?

Do you think that spectacles should be covered by insurance?

Nope, I pay for mine and I don't quibble about it.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yes clearly the diaphragm, spermicide, cervical cap, etc are ALL solely controlled and utilized by the other partner.

And those are all free?

PS: they aren't as effective either.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I saw someone retweet a photo of a rally that the (in)famous Sandra Fluke hosted the other day (the crowd was in the tens... if not slightly less then ten) and it reminded me of the whole mess about how people are demanding contraceptives be covered by one's insurance, Obama even brought it up at the second debate. I want this cleared up because I'm not quite sure what I think about it over all... but I can say I do think it's equine gak that a group's whining and crying about having to pay for oral contraceptives... which let's face it aren't a medical necessity when my little sister has to pay for her insulin, which she will die without. Seems like a really screwed up priority list to me.

So, you think it's 'horse gak' for a group wanting a medication covered by their insurance because your little sister doesn't have a medication covered by her insurance.

Perhaps you could take that same 'seamless logic' you're deploying and ask why those women shouldn't get birth control covered by insurance when men often have viagra covered by theirs?

Or perhaps you believe insurance should only cover 'life saving' medications?


Or, perhaps, you've just kneejerk reacted without thinking this through...

IUD is very effective.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I saw someone retweet a photo of a rally that the (in)famous Sandra Fluke hosted the other day (the crowd was in the tens... if not slightly less then ten) and it reminded me of the whole mess about how people are demanding contraceptives be covered by one's insurance, Obama even brought it up at the second debate. I want this cleared up because I'm not quite sure what I think about it over all... but I can say I do think it's equine gak that a group's whining and crying about having to pay for oral contraceptives... which let's face it aren't a medical necessity when my little sister has to pay for her insulin, which she will die without. Seems like a really screwed up priority list to me.

So, you think it's 'horse gak' for a group wanting a medication covered by their insurance because your little sister doesn't have a medication covered by her insurance.

Perhaps you could take that same 'seamless logic' you're deploying and ask why those women shouldn't get birth control covered by insurance when men often have viagra covered by theirs?

Or perhaps you believe insurance should only cover 'life saving' medications?


Or, perhaps, you've just kneejerk reacted without thinking this through...

I think it's horsegak to be complaining about what is for the majority of people proscribed something that they will DIE without when thousands of people world wide have to pay for life saving medication such as insulin.

I agree it's quite silly viagra's covered, make'em pay for it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IUD is very effective.

Also expensive and requires a doctor.

Unless you get it for free like on the NHS in the UK.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Unless you get it for free like on the NHS in the UK.

Yeah, but that's a sensible system. We're talking about how it works in the US.

Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Unless you get it for free like on the NHS in the UK.

Yeah, but that's a sensible system. We're talking about how it works in the US.

There's the post that wins the thread.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

I agree it's quite silly viagra's covered, make'em pay for it.

Yeah, how dare they receive coverage for medication that improve a condition which might be psychologically crippling as well as a major relationship problem?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I saw someone retweet a photo of a rally that the (in)famous Sandra Fluke hosted the other day (the crowd was in the tens... if not slightly less then ten) and it reminded me of the whole mess about how people are demanding contraceptives be covered by one's insurance, Obama even brought it up at the second debate. I want this cleared up because I'm not quite sure what I think about it over all... but I can say I do think it's equine gak that a group's whining and crying about having to pay for oral contraceptives... which let's face it aren't a medical necessity when my little sister has to pay for her insulin, which she will die without. Seems like a really screwed up priority list to me.

So, you think it's 'horse gak' for a group wanting a medication covered by their insurance because your little sister doesn't have a medication covered by her insurance.

Perhaps you could take that same 'seamless logic' you're deploying and ask why those women shouldn't get birth control covered by insurance when men often have viagra covered by theirs?

Or perhaps you believe insurance should only cover 'life saving' medications?


Or, perhaps, you've just kneejerk reacted without thinking this through...

I think it's horsegak to be complaining about what is for the majority of people proscribed something that they will DIE without when thousands of people world wide have to pay for life saving medication such as insulin.

I agree it's quite silly viagra's covered, make'em pay for it.

Or, and this is a fething staggering concept for some people in this, most powerful nation on earth...

You could have a universal healthcare system that covers all of it, according to medical need. The cost of contraception massively outweighed by the lack of unwanted children crippling the social services of the nation and reducing crime and saving costs on state education and more healthcare and those self same unwanted pregnancies growing up to contribute to the problem by reproducing themselves.

You know, like every other industrialized nation on earth provides...

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
But, students needs to feth!

I believe in forced retroactive abortions. I have a list...

Poverty and social inequality are, as accepted by most, the leading cause of teenage pregnancy.

Until we start looking for ways to raise people up, instead of locking people out---I cannot fathom why we (as a nation), would not encourage the use of contraceptives. It is vastly cheaper, in every way imaginable, than paying for the birth of a child--whom will likely repeat the cycle 15 years later. It appears to be one of the best investments we can make with our tax dollars---disregarding the many women on contraceptives for other medical issues.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Poverty and social inequality are, as accepted by most, the leading cause of teenage pregnancy.

Until we start looking for ways to raise people up, instead of locking people out---I cannot fathom why we (as a nation), would not encourage the use of contraceptives. It is vastly cheaper, in every way imaginable, than paying for the birth of a child--whom will likely repeat the cycle 15 years later. It appears to be one of the best investments we can make with our tax dollars---disregarding the many women on contraceptives for other medical issues.

Because a wizard said it's wrong!

The topic is Contraceptives and You:

I'm 100% for contraception. People should need licenses to breed just like they need one to drive.

In fact, I believe you should get an implant the second you are fertile and only get that implant removed if you can pass a test.

That wasn't satire or hyperbole. Too many stupid people.

 kronk wrote:


I'm 100% for contraception. People should need licenses to breed just like they need one to drive.

LMFO, some people would just never have kids; and wonder aloud why we don't encourage failure.

In fact, I believe you should get an implant the second you are fertile and only get that implant removed if you can pass a test.

I'm like 80% sure that Rush said that in the mid 90's. It may have been about welfare though.

 kronk wrote:
The topic is Contraceptives and You:

I'm 100% for contraception. People should need licenses to breed just like they need one to drive.

In fact, I believe you should get an implant the second you are fertile and only get that implant removed if you can pass a test.

That wasn't satire or hyperbole. Too many stupid people.

I'm all for liberty, but I could get behind this

There's some really glaring issues with that idea though.

Just think, we're getting to a point now where our aged population is starting to overwhelm our younger population. A major issue with healthcare systems the world around, at least in the more developed countries, is that as birth rates decrease and the population ages, the healthcare system struggles to take care of the massive influx of aging people (who, obviously, tend to have more health issues and require more serious care, and tend to no longer contribute to the economy), while we have a smaller margin of younger people to pay into the system.

If you limit who can have children, then this problem will only be exacerbated. In a way, the world needs its feth ups. That is, so long as those feth ups pay into the system.

 Fafnir wrote:
There's some really glaring issues with that idea though.

Just think, we're getting to a point now where our aged population is starting to overwhelm our younger population. A major issue with healthcare systems the world around, at least in the more developed countries, is that as birth rates decrease and the population ages, the healthcare system struggles to take care of the massive influx of aging people (who, obviously, tend to have more health issues and retire more serious care), while we have a smaller margin of younger people to pay into the system.

If you limit who can have children, then this problem will only be exacerbated. In a way, the world needs its feth ups. That is, so long as those feth ups pay into the system.

Or you get young hardworking immigrants.

I think contraception should be not only as free as we can make it, but as mandatory as we can make it. The gak's getting dire here.

Seriously though, I've also dated a few girls who have had issues so bad that they needed oral contraception for managing themselves. One of them has endometriosis, and was getting ovarian cysts. There were times she was so crippled with pain that she couldn't get out of bed. She and I left on the worst terms I think I've ever parted with anyone, and I still pity her for whatever she must be going through.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:
There's some really glaring issues with that idea though.

Just think, we're getting to a point now where our aged population is starting to overwhelm our younger population. A major issue with healthcare systems the world around, at least in the more developed countries, is that as birth rates decrease and the population ages, the healthcare system struggles to take care of the massive influx of aging people (who, obviously, tend to have more health issues and retire more serious care), while we have a smaller margin of younger people to pay into the system.

If you limit who can have children, then this problem will only be exacerbated. In a way, the world needs its feth ups. That is, so long as those feth ups pay into the system.

That's why they (we?) get for overbreeding beyond their (our?) means.

 AustonT wrote:

In fact, I believe you should get an implant the second you are fertile and only get that implant removed if you can pass a test.

I'm like 80% sure that Rush said that in the mid 90's. It may have been about welfare though.

He might have, but he does need to fill a lot of airtime, and it can hardly all be with original thoughts. Didn't he also advocate imprisoning all drug addicts (at a time before he was publicly revealed to be a drug addict, of course)?

 Mannahnin wrote:
Didn't he also advocate imprisoning all drug addicts (at a time before he was publicly revealed to be a drug addict, of course)?

But those were prescription quality drugs, designed and produced by Wholesome Red-Blooded Americans(TM). Surely those don't count, right? I mean, that seems like Capitalism at it's finest, surely.

 Fafnir wrote:
There's some really glaring issues with that idea though.

Just think, we're getting to a point now where our aged population is starting to overwhelm our younger population. A major issue with healthcare systems the world around, at least in the more developed countries, is that as birth rates decrease and the population ages, the healthcare system struggles to take care of the massive influx of aging people (who, obviously, tend to have more health issues and require more serious care, and tend to no longer contribute to the economy), while we have a smaller margin of younger people to pay into the system.

If you limit who can have children, then this problem will only be exacerbated. In a way, the world needs its feth ups. That is, so long as those feth ups pay into the system.

And what do you think will happen to those kids we had to have to support an ageing population when they grow up. They're going to need even more young blood to pay for their retirement and so on and so on until WW3 breaks out where we fight over the last remaing resources because we literaly fethed ourselves to death.

No, the whole issue of an ageing population needs to be dealt with in the long term by enduring the extra costs now until the baby boomers die off while encouraging sustainable familes in the mean time.

Well, the best situation would be to have everything be a steady, consistent birthrate across the decades. Of course, ever since the boomers came around, this was bound to happen. We just got the gak end of the stick.

You're entirely right though, but we can't just harshly limit people to discourage population growth altogether. I was motioning more for a sustainable birth rate, rather than a high or low one.

 Fafnir wrote:
I was motioning more for a sustainable birth rate, rather than a high or low one.

Which almost demands enforcing a birth rate. I mean, for every one of us willing to remove ourselves from the gene pool, there's another couple having six to eight kids. That's not sustainable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And also, feth the boomers. The old-person safety net is going to fail; we've been robbing from it for some time now. Why wait till they're gone to realize the results? I mean, the rest of us are going to have to live in the world they've created, perhaps we should force them to also.

If only there were some way, that was free, for people to not get pregnant that was for all intents and purposes 100% effective.

 Monster Rain wrote:
If only there were some way, that was free, for people to not get pregnant that was for all intents and purposes 100% effective.

If only it were any fun...

Ahh abstinence that old chestnut, I'm gonna repeat the very first thing that was said to us during our first class of highschool sex ed.

"The fact is there is only one 100% way of preventing STDs and unwanted pregnacies and that is to not have sex at all.

But since we all live in the real world let's talk about condoms."

There is, get a universal healthcare system with free contraceptives and ensure people are supplies with multiple means of protection and the education to use them

Give a man a condom and he and his partner will be safe once, teach a man the reasons for using one and they will be safe forever

 SilverMK2 wrote:
There is, get a universal healthcare system with free contraceptives and ensure people are supplies with multiple means of protection and the education to use them

A lot of women, and depending upon the particular version of the oral contraceptive, find themselves without much sex-drive.

At least, that's what I've been told, for certain values of women and different contraceptives. I might be getting duped. Your mileage might vary.

I'd like to pack one. find a loooose white girl, and XXX hehehe have some fun meow.

 Lone Cat wrote:
I'd like to pack one. find a loooose white girl, and XXX hehehe have some fun meow.

By my understanding, most of the loooose white girls in your country are actually guys pretending to be girls, or am I mistaken?

 Madcat87 wrote:
Ahh abstinence that old chestnut, I'm gonna repeat the very first thing that was said to us during our first class of highschool sex ed.

"The fact is there is only one 100% way of preventing STDs and unwanted pregnacies and that is to not have sex at all.

But since we all live in the real world let's talk about condoms."

Cute, but the issue gets rather more "sticky" when it crosses into the territory of "other people's money."

Though, with that said, I hardly think this is any sort of pressing concern.

 Monster Rain wrote:
You're better than that.

I'm drunk and don't deserve the retrospective that MR gave me. I'm done here for the night.

You're better than that.

"Other people's money" arguments disregard the fact that it's cheaper to provide contraceptives than to care for the children.

 Mannahnin wrote:
"Other people's money" arguments disregard the fact that it's cheaper to provide contraceptives than to care for the children.

Sure but I don't think we should have to pay for those either. Personal responsibility is a pain but thus is life.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Free, freely-available birth control saves the taxpayers money overall, gives poor women better control over their lives and families, and can help out even better-off women who are in a temporary situation of restricted finances, like in college or unemployed.

There is no moral grounds on which NOT to provide it. it's in our rational self-interest in a society. The religious strictures of those who oppose it legitimately apply only to its personal USE. If your religion forbids using contraception, then it would be immoral to force you to personally use it. But it is also immoral for you to impose your religion on empoyees who do not share that religious belief. Which is functionally what you're doing if you refuse to provide coverage for your employees. Especially the poorer ones.

IME the best Catholics (to choose one example) I know are very concerned with the plight of the poor, and I'm honestly shocked that organizations which are opposed to abortion are not gangbusters in FAVOR of wider and easier access to contraception. It seems a no-brainer. The only explanation I can come up with for it is that it's not, in its essence, about contraception being bad. It's about making it more difficult for women to control their own bodies and reproduction.

Agreed. I was about to say something like that.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
"Other people's money" arguments disregard the fact that it's cheaper to provide contraceptives than to care for the children.

Sure but I don't think we should have to pay for those either. Personal responsibility is a pain but thus is life.

And your personal responsibility is to pay into programs that help people less fortunate than yourself, and that may someday help you when you're in a time of need, in addition to other basic social needs such as education, roads, policing, and other valuable services. I'm sure most Americans aren't too happy about having to pay for a war in Iraq, but thus is life.

It's all well and good to just say we shouldn't be paying for it but that just conveniently ignores the reality of the situation.

We will be paying for it as our governments have decided to continue support for welfare/centrelink/healthcare/whatever you countries equivalent is, So why not pay for it in a way that actually costs us less?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Sure but I don't think we should have to pay for those either. Personal responsibility is a pain but thus is life.

Hint: welfare for poor parents is for the children. You know, the people who did nothing wrong and can't yet take responsibility for their own survival.

 daedalus wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
I'd like to pack one. find a loooose white girl, and XXX hehehe have some fun meow.

By my understanding, most of the loooose white girls in your country are actually guys pretending to be girls, or am I mistaken?

nah. I know where to find one.

I don't really understand this argument against national programs like health care because it's "Other people's money".

In reality with programs like this you're contributing to something that benefits you as well as everyone else. If you're that fiscally irresponsible that you can't afford something like a 1% Medicare levy like in Australia, then you have other issues.

People in poverty (usually the ones who receive the most help and "Other people's money") are not there purely because of their own doing, the sooner certain people accept that the sooner I'll take their opinions seriously. Then again it's the same mentality that people apply to rape victims. "They shouldn't dress like that if they don't want the attention."

AgeOfEgos wrote:Poverty and social inequality are, as accepted by most, the leading cause of teenage pregnancy.

Until we start looking for ways to raise people up, instead of locking people out---I cannot fathom why we (as a nation), would not encourage the use of contraceptives. It is vastly cheaper, in every way imaginable, than paying for the birth of a child--whom will likely repeat the cycle 15 years later. It appears to be one of the best investments we can make with our tax dollars---disregarding the many women on contraceptives for other medical issues.

Couldn't agree with this more.

kronk wrote:The topic is Contraceptives and You:

I'm 100% for contraception. People should need licenses to breed just like they need one to drive.

In fact, I believe you should get an implant the second you are fertile and only get that implant removed if you can pass a test.

That wasn't satire or hyperbole. Too many stupid people.

I agree completely. Not so much with 'stupid' - lets call it uneducated - people, but those who just take from society in many ways yet contribute nothing in return. In the UK at least there is a real problem with an 'underclass' (I won't say just poor people, you also get people with money who are a massive inconvenience to everyone around them) who have massive families at a young age, don't bother to raise their children, and those kids then go on to commit the crimes, and drain from the state in welfare and other ways. They get to 16, and the cycle repeats. Yet no politician would dare to even say something like this - their career would be in tatters the moment they even hinted at such a concern, even though it is probably the prime reason for about 90% of the social and economic problems in the UK today. They would get branded as a 'Hitler' or a 'Stalin' or some other such nonsense by their political opponents who would make capital out of it.

Not sure what the answer is really. Having visited Israel in the past and read about it a lot, I quite like the idea of the 'Kibbutz' - the self contained community, where you take the responsibility for raising children out of the hands of the parents who are unable to do so well. Children attend from early in the morning until late in the evening, and the minders (more than just academic teachers, they show the kids everything about life and social responsibility, clubs and sports are involved etc) and so the exposure the kids have to their parents is reduced. Israel has one of the lowest juvenile delinquency rates (as well as crime rates) in the world, and I found generally a much stronger feeling of social responsibility amongst the people who live there. I won't doing something similar would solve all the problems, but it would sew the seeds for future generations. It would be expensive of course, but nothing like the expense that having to correct these sociological problems costs.

 Lone Cat wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
I'd like to pack one. find a loooose white girl, and XXX hehehe have some fun meow.

By my understanding, most of the loooose white girls in your country are actually guys pretending to be girls, or am I mistaken?

nah. I know where to find one.

Ah, well, I can find ONE. That's easy.

Also, to be fair, I had mistaken your flag for the Philippines initially, not Thailand, hence my comment. Damn 'muricans. I apologize.

 Monster Rain wrote:
If only there were some way, that was free, for people to not get pregnant that was for all intents and purposes 100% effective.

Ha! If only...

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
"Other people's money" arguments disregard the fact that it's cheaper to provide contraceptives than to care for the children.

Sure but I don't think we should have to pay for those either. Personal responsibility is a pain but thus is life.

That's kind of what I was going to say.

I'm not sure when this debate morphed from "people should have ready access to contraception" to "people are entitled to free contraception." There are some good arguments for it, though. I can just understand the fact that people think it's lame to have tax dollars go toward paying for things that aren't actually necessary.

 MrScience wrote:
. Then again it's the same mentality that people apply to rape victims. "They shouldn't dress like that if they don't want the attention."

This is hysterically wrong.

 Monster Rain wrote:

I'm not sure when this debate morphed from "people should have ready access to contraception" to "people are entitled to free contraception." There are some good arguments for it, though. I can just understand the fact that people think it's lame to have tax dollars go toward paying for things that aren't actually necessary.

Well, to be fair, one is just the extreme of the other. Removing cost from contraception makes it as ready as it can possibly be short of having a condom dispenser in your house and someone standing by to apply it.

You should first understand that I personally think we should continue providing free contraceptives for pragmatic reasons.

I just don't think that this belief is necessarily objectively morally correct. I would also say that, ideologically, I'm not crazy about having other people pay for things that basically come down to the irresponsible choices made by the recipients, but if I was given an opportunity to choose what programs and expenditures to cut to balance the budget contraception would be very near the bottom of the list.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Sure but I don't think we should have to pay for those either. Personal responsibility is a pain but thus is life.

So I take it you also would like to see fire and police protection paid for by recipients?

And what personal responsibility? Why should I care for a child that made the awful personal choice of being born to an uncaring family? Surely they must be held responsible for their actions. I imagine that sounds somewhere between "insance" and "inhuman", but the point is that we, as a society, have developed a certain set of expectations with respect to proper behavior. If we want those expectations to have meaning we should not only enforce them (in the above case by legal means) or incentivize them (in the case of birth control by way of subsidy).

 dogma wrote:


So I take it you also would like to see fire and police protection paid for by recipients?

...said Crassus, ominously.

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Sure but I don't think we should have to pay for those either. Personal responsibility is a pain but thus is life.

So I take it you also would like to see fire and police protection paid for by recipients?

And what personal responsibility? Why should I care for a child that made the awful personal choice of being born to an uncaring family? Surely they must be held responsible for their actions.

KMarine and Dogma... what are we arguing about?

Contraceptive IS accessible now... so, what's the dealio?

 whembly wrote:

Contraceptive IS accessible now... so, what's the dealio?

That it isn't freely accessible and, to a degree, that certain organizations are allowed to refuse to provide coverage for it.

Of course, this is just part of the larger healthcare debate. This is most notable with respect to the OP's cited example of insulin, which should be covered by all rights. Of course, it most likely never will be as Americans seem to have this weird idea that they're somehow "free" in an abstract sense.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
If only there were some way, that was free, for people to not get pregnant that was for all intents and purposes 100% effective.

If only it were any fun...

....sterilet?

The idea that people should pay for their own contraception used for contraceptive rather than medicinal purposes would be very "ethical" if everyone had equal access to contraception services. But that isn't the case.

In other threads we have seen various examples of how contraception is not accessible, e.g. girls accused of being whores by the pharmacy assistant when they go to collect a prescription, and where Roman Catholic funded hospitals and insurance companies want to refuse to provide contraception services because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

There is a perception that contraceptives are a recreational product.

Barring examples where contraceptives are used medicinally (let's not pretend this isn't a completely separate issue), can anyone tell me why this perception is false?

 Manchu wrote:
There is a perception that contraceptives are a recreational product.

Barring examples where contraceptives are used medicinally (let's not pretend this isn't a completely separate issue), can anyone tell me why this perception is false?

The nul hypothesis would be that contraceptive drugs are medicinal drugs, thus it is up to you to prove that they are recreational drugs, not us to prove that they are not.

Would you consider a married couple that either isn't ready for children, or does not want more children, to also be recreational? Married sex, as any comedian will tell you, is far from recreational. Are we back to saying sex should only be done if the point is procreation?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Contraceptive IS accessible now... so, what's the dealio?

That it isn't freely accessible and, to a degree, that certain organizations are allowed to refuse to provide coverage for it.

And that's the crux of this debate.

Should it be "free" in all and every cases?

Or can't we have a "win-win" system here? Contraceptive IS readily available and if it's not free now, you CAN get them cheaply.

The mere fact that Religious institutions don't want to provide them doesn't mean that women CANT get what the need else where. So, let those institutions not cover them...

I know this because A) I have lots of familiy working for Catholic organizations and B) I regularly work with the OB\GYN groups... and interestingly enough, this is a common discussion topic.

Of course, this is just part of the larger healthcare debate. This is most notable with respect to the OP's cited example of insulin, which should be covered by all rights.

I agree with the OP that this is assinine. His point ( I gather ) is that insulin is more LIFE THREATENING requirement than having cheap contraceptives to prevent pregnancies... I think that's his point about "the priorities".

Of course, it most likely never will be as Americans seem to have this weird idea that they're somehow "free" in an abstract sense.

Eh... I don't think Americans would object to Universal Health Care in the same way as the Canadian/NHS model as much as the opposition to ObamaCare.

If the federal spending can be under control (that is, reduce the overall size of government), then that can free up enough jack to replace Medicare/Mediaid with a Universal Healthcare. Then, THEN the religious institutions won't have any standings on not paying the tax. But, force them to purchase/manage packages that runs contrary to their belief... its no surprise why they up in arms.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The nul hypothesis would be that contraceptive drugs are medicinal drugs

No it's not.

 Ahtman wrote:
Are we back to saying sex should only be done if the point is procreation?

The idea that non-intentionally procreative sex is recreational is in no way denigratory of marital relations. It certainly doesn't imply that the only purpose of sex in marriage is procreation.

Poverty is the key indicator to early teenage pregnancy.
There is an association between poverty, single parent households and lower education.

So--what we are asking is--that a teenage child, who lives in poverty, likely has more contact with peers and multimedia than her single working parent, likely has no hopes for a college education (or examples/parental motivation to seek one)---to spend their money wisely and purchase contraception with what limited funds they have--or ignore hundreds of thousands of years of biological hardwiring and not engage in sexual acts.

That's not a bet I would be willing to take.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Poverty is the key indicator to early teenage pregnancy.
There is an association between poverty, single parent households and lower education.

So--what we are asking is--that a teenage child, who lives in poverty, likely has more contact with peers and multimedia than her single working parent, likely has no hopes for a college education (or examples/parental motivation to seek one)---to spend their money wisely and purchase contraception with what limited funds they have--or ignore hundreds of thousands of years of biological hardwiring and not engage in sexual acts.

That's not a bet I would be willing to take.

That's happening now...

Unwanted pregnancies happens all the time.

 whembly wrote:

Or can't we have a "win-win" system here? Contraceptive IS readily available and if it's not free now, you CAN get them cheaply.

How is that a win/win situation? To me it seems like a win for people who are against contraceptives, and a loss for everyone else.

 whembly wrote:

I agree with the OP that this is assinine. His point ( I gather ) is that insulin is more LIFE THREATENING requirement than having cheap contraceptives to prevent pregnancies... I think that's his point about "the priorities".

Sure, but he has gone in the wrong direction in assuming that, because his sister has to pay for insulin, everyone should pay for their own medication. I would prefer a system in which the cost for all medication were spread across all contributors. I'll also add that his sister must have an awful health plan.

 whembly wrote:

Eh... I don't think Americans would object to Universal Health Care in the same way as the Canadian/NHS model as much as the opposition to ObamaCare.

I doubt that, there was massive public outcry to push Obamacare away from a single-payer system.

 whembly wrote:

But, force them to purchase/manage packages that runs contrary to their belief... its no surprise why they up in arms.

They would still have to pay taxes on a system contrary to their "beliefs", which is to say refrain from imposing their beliefs on others.

 Manchu wrote:
There is a perception that contraceptives are a recreational product.

Barring examples where contraceptives are used medicinally (let's not pretend this isn't a completely separate issue), can anyone tell me why this perception is false?

It isn't, but what insurance company will not cover surgery due to an injury sustained in a recreational activity? Like, for example driving when not going to work.

 Manchu wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The nul hypothesis would be that contraceptive drugs are medicinal drugs

No it's not.

Contraceptive drugs are medical drugs. They are prescribed by a healthcare professional to treat, mitigate or prevent some biological function and they also alter the behaviour of the body. Thus they are a medicinal drug (differentiated from simply being a "drug" by their use). They are also incidentally licensed worldwide for use as a medicinal drug and are described as such in the codes of law of pretty much every country.

There are several medicinal drugs which are also characterised as recreational drugs, however, that involves a further characterisation.

Since contraceptive drugs are already clearly defined as medicinal drugs, the nul hypothesis is that contraceptive drugs are medicinal drugs. I grant you that if you want to throw out everything already known about drugs, the nul hypothesis would be that contraceptive drugs have no effect on the body at all... but I thought we might want to skip going right back to first principles and work from already well established knowledge.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Or can't we have a "win-win" system here? Contraceptive IS readily available and if it's not free now, you CAN get them cheaply.

How is that a win/win situation? To me it seems like a win for people who are against contraceptives, and a loss for everyone else.

?? A win/win is like this:
Win #1: keep contraceptive cheap and easy to get (like now)... OBGYN office regularly give months worth of samples... Go to your local PP office... Walmart sells 'em dirt cheap...

Win #2: allow religious institutions to NOT cover them on their plans... because Win #1 is still there.

 whembly wrote:

I agree with the OP that this is assinine. His point ( I gather ) is that insulin is more LIFE THREATENING requirement than having cheap contraceptives to prevent pregnancies... I think that's his point about "the priorities".

Sure, but he has gone in the wrong direction in assuming that, because his sister has to pay for insulin, everyone should pay for their own medication. I would prefer a system in which the cost for all medication were spread across all contributors. I'll also add that his sister must have an awful health plan.

Eh... he does have a point.

I think the MAJOR disconnect here is thinking that "hey I have insurance, so everything should be free/accessible once I paid my premiums". That's not how insurances work here...

 whembly wrote:

Eh... I don't think Americans would object to Universal Health Care in the same way as the Canadian/NHS model as much as the opposition to ObamaCare.

I doubt that, there was massive public outcry to push Obamacare away from a single-payer system.

Okay... I'm sure you think I'm some red-blooded Conservative here...

But, if I can be convinced that without raising major taxes and replacing ObamaCare/Medicare/Medicaid with the Canadian model AND allow private insurances to offer additional plans for "more electives, faster service, etc"... then tell me where to sign up!

(fyi... I'm socially liberal, but governmentally conservative... so, I'd like to think of myself as a "South Park Conservative"!)

 whembly wrote:

But, force them to purchase/manage packages that runs contrary to their belief... its no surprise why they up in arms.

They would still have to pay taxes on a system contrary to their "beliefs", which is to say refrain from imposing their beliefs on others.

There is a difference paying/managing a plan vs paying a "tax" that goes towards that.

There's catholic institutions in Canada/Britian/Italy/etc... I'm sure the do fine there.

Yeah, the Catholic would bitch/moan about it... but they'll deal with it.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Contraceptive drugs are medical drugs. They are prescribed by a healthcare professional to treat, mitigate or prevent some biological function and they also alter the behaviour of the body. Thus they are a medicinal drug (differentiated from simply being a "drug" by their use).

This is called "begging the question" plus I already dealt with the idea of contraceptives as prescribed for non-contraceptive purposes (i.e., we're not actually talking about that). So what that leaves is everything that can be compared to a condom bought whenever by whomever in a store.

 whembly wrote:

Win #1: keep contraceptive cheap and easy to get (like now)... OBGYN office regularly give months worth of samples... Go to your local PP office... Walmart sells 'em dirt cheap...

Win #2: allow religious institutions to NOT cover them on their plans... because Win #1 is still there.

That's not a win/win. That system allows any hypothetical company to deny exemption according to religious exemption, not matter how absurd, much as the Catholic Church is presently doing.

 whembly wrote:

Eh... he does have a point.

I think the MAJOR disconnect here is thinking that "hey I have insurance, so everything should be free/accessible once I paid my premiums". That's not how insurances work here...

No, it isn't, but requiring the coverage of birth control stems from the same sentiment that requires the coverage of insulin. Saying that because insulin isn't covered that birth control shouldn't be either completely misses the point.

This is why its called healthcare reform.

 whembly wrote:

Dogma... not necessarily in this case, but do you draw a line of personal responsiblity anywhere?

Yes, but its extremely case-based. I don't engage with mass politics on a personal level.

 dogma wrote:
It isn't, but what insurance company will not cover surgery due to an injury sustained in a recreational activity? Like, for example driving when not going to work.

The difference of course is that we're not talking about an injury that has already been sustained (and that is a poor way to think of conception, but I'll leave it aside). A better example would be whether insurance should cover a course that gets you fit enough to climb Mt. Everest (or at least to the point of having a very low probability of injury resulting from being out of shape).

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Win #1: keep contraceptive cheap and easy to get (like now)... OBGYN office regularly give months worth of samples... Go to your local PP office... Walmart sells 'em dirt cheap...

Win #2: allow religious institutions to NOT cover them on their plans... because Win #1 is still there.

That's not a win/win. That system allows any hypothetical company to deny exemption according to religious exemption, not matter how absurd, much as the Catholic Church is presently doing.

How is that NOT a win/win?

You'd have a point if contraceptive is too expensive...

 whembly wrote:

Eh... he does have a point.

I think the MAJOR disconnect here is thinking that "hey I have insurance, so everything should be free/accessible once I paid my premiums". That's not how insurances work here...

No, it isn't, but requiring the coverage of birth control stems from the same sentiment that requires the coverage of insulin. Saying that because insulin isn't covered that birth control shouldn't be either completely misses the point.

This is why its called healthcare reform.

He's not saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that because insulins isn't covered, contraceptives shouldn't be... he's saying that when setting up an insurance plan, the priorities need to be better defined.

 whembly wrote:

Dogma... not necessarily in this case, but do you draw a line of personal responsiblity anywhere?

Yes, but its extremely case-based. I don't engage with mass politics on a personal level.

 Manchu wrote:
There is a perception that contraceptives are a recreational product.

Barring examples where contraceptives are used medicinally (let's not pretend this isn't a completely separate issue), can anyone tell me why this perception is false?

It doesn't matter IMO. Recreational sex is an essential part of intimate relationships. You can't seriously expect people of all walks of life, even those married many years, never to have sex unless they are specifically trying for children, it's stupid and unfair. Having a healthy sex life is good for you mentally and physically. The majority of sex may be 'recreational', but lets not pretend that means it's like watching the TV or playing football.

Contraceptives absolutely should be free because they serve a responsible and healthy society. Providing contraceptives will always be cheaper than supporting the otherwise higher number of children born into impoverished backgrounds, certain contraceptives prevent the spread of STDs, and they help people plan their families responsibly to have children when they able to raise them properly. The people against this simply refuse to see the economic and social benefits. And many are likely are moralising christians who insist on pushing the ludicrous ideal that abstinence education is effective and is realistic for everyone to live by. Or those leading the moral panic on things like proper sex education, condoms being available in schools, or things like the HPV vaccine (which apparently turns children into whores as a vaccine against one STD means they'll want to have lots of meaningless sex ASAP)

 Manchu wrote:
There is a perception that contraceptives are a recreational product.

Barring examples where contraceptives are used medicinally (let's not pretend this isn't a completely separate issue), can anyone tell me why this perception is false?

There are several serious commentaries in the Talmud about when and how contraceptives should be used, then again recreational sex isn't forbidden in Judaism either.

@Howard & Auston: I have nothing against recreational sex. I just don't think the various accouterments associated with it, whether condoms or KY for Him and Her, are the kind of thing insurance providers have a duty to cover.

 Manchu wrote:
The difference of course is that we're not talking about an injury that has already been sustained

In neither case are we doing so. No insurance company, absent present legal provisions, would ever pay for a broken leg you sustained prior to their coverage. Nor would they compensate you for birth control you didn't buy through them.

If birth control is recreational, and therefore should not be covered by federally subsidized policies, then neither should we consider driving a car absent necessity, playing soccer, or walking on ice. Insurance companies cover all kinds of recreational things by way of category, this should be no different.

This whole issue is about an obscene appeal to traditionalism.

whembly wrote:Yeah, the Catholic would bitch/moan about it... but they'll deal with it.

It appears that you have no idea about who it is that you are talking about, historically speaking.

Did you know that this Hallowe'en marks the 20th anniversary of the Catholic Church accepting that the Earth orbits around the Sun?

whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Win #1: keep contraceptive cheap and easy to get (like now)... OBGYN office regularly give months worth of samples... Go to your local PP office... Walmart sells 'em dirt cheap...

Win #2: allow religious institutions to NOT cover them on their plans... because Win #1 is still there.

That's not a win/win. That system allows any hypothetical company to deny exemption according to religious exemption, not matter how absurd, much as the Catholic Church is presently doing.

How is that NOT a win/win?

You'd have a point if contraceptive is too expensive...

It is too expensive for a lot of people. There are millions of people in the US living hand-to-mouth, and even as little as $9 a month is $9 they don't have.

 Manchu wrote:
@Howard & Auston: I have nothing against recreational sex. I just don't think the various accouterments associated with it, whether condoms or KY for Him and Her, are the kind of thing insurance providers have a duty to cover.

Why? There are far more people having sex then need insulin, but we'll pay for that (or we should), so it seems odd that one of the fundamental activities of being human beyond eating and sleeping should be such a bugaboo for being healthy and responsible, and we are even talking about having to use huge sums of money to do it. Forgoing any other argument, it is cheaper for the provider than STD treatment, or pregnancy related costs. It just seems to me that the cons don't come close to outweighing the pros, unless you start inserting non-medical, non-fiscal reasoning, like religion, or general fear of the boobies and other lady parts.

 Manchu wrote:
@Howard & Auston: I have nothing against recreational sex. I just don't think the various accouterments associated with it, whether condoms or KY for Him and Her, are the kind of thing insurance providers have a duty to cover.

Has anyone actually proposed insurance covering condoms and lube? I was pretty sure this was confined to BC and plan B.

Manchu wrote:@Howard & Auston: I have nothing against recreational sex. I just don't think the various accouterments associated with it, whether condoms or KY for Him and Her, are the kind of thing insurance providers have a duty to cover.

While this point doesn't cover apply to birth control, it does to some other contraceptives: condoms are a lot cheaper than AIDS cocktails. So it is in the insurance companies' best financial interests to cover contraceptives.


I think this discussion would be a lot more honest if both sides would just acknowledge that the real debate at issue is that Christian churches are against sex and want their dogma in your bedroom, and this entire insurance issue is just the church actinging in a passive-aggressive manner.


EDIT: Holy gak, I got ninja'd twice!

Protip: KY Warming Sensation is for vaginal use only.


ONLY!!!

kronk wrote:Protip: KY Warming Sensation is for vaginal use only.


ONLY!!!

It also makes a great base for fake Hallowe'en blood.

 kronk wrote:
Protip: KY Warming Sensation is for vaginal use only.


ONLY!!!

What is nice about life is that you can still learn new things everyday.

At my old school district, of the 6 or so Highschools they had, They had one specifically for pregnant moms, with nsite play areas, daycare and im pretty sure better food.
And i mean a real good one,
All that money could have been spent on condom dispensers in the boys locker room. My friend was so surprised when we went to college to see a condom machine in the boys bathroom.

 Manchu wrote:
@Howard & Auston: I have nothing against recreational sex. I just don't think the various accouterments associated with it, whether condoms or KY for Him and Her, are the kind of thing insurance providers have a duty to cover.

What Manchu is becoming a Libertarian now?

"You can do what you want, just leave me alone."
-Frazzled, not caring about anything other than he just ran out of Swiss Cake Rolls, and now its time for the world to pay.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@Howard & Auston: I have nothing against recreational sex. I just don't think the various accouterments associated with it, whether condoms or KY for Him and Her, are the kind of thing insurance providers have a duty to cover.

What Manchu is becoming a Libertarian now?

Manchu is all things to all people.

And, let us be honest, your motto is more "You can do what you want, just leave my family alone, and let me pretend like some creepy guy in a horror movie that we don't exist in a place where other humans live and I have them all to myself".

 dogma wrote:
In neither case are we doing so.

Sure we are. In one instance, the coverage is for treatment of an injury as/when it is suffered. In the other case, there is coverage for something without regard to an injury suffered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
What Manchu is becoming a Libertarian now?

Hey now, no need to call me dirty names.

In all honesty, and this is for dogma I guess, I see nothing wrong with people using birth control and I honestly think the Catholic teaching on the issue is altogether political (curial rather than US politics, mind) rather than moral. But I'm just not sure why there is any obligation for insurance companies to cover it except when its prescribed for reasons unrelated to preventing conception.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@Howard & Auston: I have nothing against recreational sex. I just don't think the various accouterments associated with it, whether condoms or KY for Him and Her, are the kind of thing insurance providers have a duty to cover.

What Manchu is becoming a Libertarian now?

Manchu is all things to all people.

And, let us be honest, your motto is more "You can do what you want, just leave my family alone, and let me pretend like some creepy guy in a horror movie that

Dude stop while you are ahead. Its perfection right there. I always wanted to be the creepy guy in the horror movie.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Yeah, the Catholic would bitch/moan about it... but they'll deal with it.

It appears that you have no idea about who it is that you are talking about, historically speaking.

Uh... aren't there Catholic institutions in Canada?

Did you know that this Hallowe'en marks the 20th anniversary of the Catholic Church accepting that the Earth orbits around the Sun?

Wait... what?

REALLY? Plz tell me that this is true... more stuff to tease my Catholic friends!

whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Win #1: keep contraceptive cheap and easy to get (like now)... OBGYN office regularly give months worth of samples... Go to your local PP office... Walmart sells 'em dirt cheap...

Win #2: allow religious institutions to NOT cover them on their plans... because Win #1 is still there.

That's not a win/win. That system allows any hypothetical company to deny exemption according to religious exemption, not matter how absurd, much as the Catholic Church is presently doing.

How is that NOT a win/win?

You'd have a point if contraceptive is too expensive...

It is too expensive for a lot of people. There are millions of people in the US living hand-to-mouth, and even as little as $9 a month is $9 they don't have.

One does not have to use contraceptives in order to have or enjoy sex, per se. The point is to reduce the chance of pregancy.

I don't know if that makes them a recreational product.

Frazzled wrote: -Frazzled, not caring about anything other than he just ran out of Swiss Cake Rolls, and now its time for the world to pay.

I think it's time for you to pay.



For more Swiss Cake Rolls.

In the sense I hope we can agree to, contraceptives do not treat an injury sustained. They are conducive although not necessary to a recreational activity. As I see it, they are much more like other recreational sexual products (one might imagine a spermicidal lubricant) than any kind of medication or treatment.

Medicine is not purely for the purpose of treating existing physical injuries. However I take your point that sex is a voluntary activity.

Let us suppose a wife, required to procreate within marriage, was prevented from doing so by very painful intercourse due to a lack of lubrication -- perhaps caused by a hormone imbalance -- would a sexual lubricant be considered necessary to the activity?

Let me see if I understand the question: if lubricant made an otherwise impossible sex act possible would it be necessary to that sex act? I'd have to say yes. But should there be a government mandate that insurance providers cover treatments that make procreative sex possible? I don't think so, although that is something I think parties should be able to privately negotiate.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote: -Frazzled, not caring about anything other than he just ran out of Swiss Cake Rolls, and now its time for the world to pay.

I think it's time for you to pay.



For more Swiss Cake Rolls.

Oh I will. I. Will. muahahahaha !

 Manchu wrote:
Sure we are. In one instance, the coverage is for treatment of an injury as/when it is suffered. In the other case, there is coverage for something without regard to an injury suffered.

Great argument for necessary abortion coverage.

After all, the party with the broken leg was injured, and so was the pregnant party.

Alternatively, we could just mandate the coverage of contraceptive care. Its much cheaper, and much less likely to be considered immoral.

 dogma wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Sure we are. In one instance, the coverage is for treatment of an injury as/when it is suffered. In the other case, there is coverage for something without regard to an injury suffered.

Great argument for necessary abortion coverage.

Only if you accept that pregnancy is an injury or disease. Can't do it, boss.

Alternatively, we could just mandate the coverage of contraceptive care. Its much cheaper, and much less likely to be considered immoral.

That'd make a great study: does mandated coverage of contraceptives reduce the incidence of abortion? Can we maybe look at some numbers from Massachusetts or something?

 Manchu wrote:
Only if you accept that pregnancy is an injury or disease.

Life is a STD.

Wasn't it Saint Augustine who said that?

 Manchu wrote:
Only if you accept that pregnancy is an injury or disease. Can't do it, boss.

I'll agree to disagree on this, because I know we're too far apart for consensus.

 Manchu wrote:

That'd make a great study: does mandated coverage of contraceptives reduce the incidence of abortion? Can we maybe look at some numbers from Massachusetts or something?

This is the first public thing I turned up.

 Manchu wrote:

Alternatively, we could just mandate the coverage of contraceptive care. Its much cheaper, and much less likely to be considered immoral.

That'd make a great study: does mandated coverage of contraceptives reduce the incidence of abortion? Can we maybe look at some numbers from Massachusetts or something?

Or even better... does Mandated Government paid brothel visits reduce the incidence of abortions?

THESE ARE THE THINGS WE MUCH KNOW!

I'll volunteer to participate in this program... who's with me!

 Manchu wrote:
Wasn't it Saint Augustine who said that?

That or Judge Death, but really we are splitting hairs at that point.

 dogma wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
That'd make a great study: does mandated coverage of contraceptives reduce the incidence of abortion? Can we maybe look at some numbers from Massachusetts or something?

This is the first public thing I turned up.

If it's true that publicly mandating insurance coverage will significantly reduce the incidence of abortion then I think anyone who thinks the end of abortion is the most important or among the most important aims of public policy pretty well must support that mandate.

 Manchu wrote:
If it's true that publicly mandating insurance coverage will significantly reduce the incidence of abortion then I think anyone who thinks the end of abortion is the most important or among the most important aims of public policy pretty well must support that mandate.

Well, if you make the rather generous assumption that opposition to abortion is legitimately about saving innocent lives, maybe. Unfortunately a large part of that opposition is based on hatred of women enjoying sex, so the goal is to ban both contraception and abortion and enforce abstinence-only policies so that the "sin" of having sex outside of marriage (or without the chance of making a child) is punished with unwanted children.

Manchu wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Sure we are. In one instance, the coverage is for treatment of an injury as/when it is suffered. In the other case, there is coverage for something without regard to an injury suffered.

Great argument for necessary abortion coverage.

Only if you accept that pregnancy is an injury or disease. Can't do it, boss.

I think one needs to pull of some pretty spectacular mental gymnastics to consider pregnancy a disease. But in the event of rape, I think pregnancy can easily be considered an injury.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think one needs to pull of some pretty spectacular mental gymnastics to consider pregnancy a disease.

Not really. Sure, in a technical sense it's not a disease, but that's not really relevant unless you're a scientist or doctor analyzing the mechanisms at work. In the sense of being "an undesirable condition of the body", then yes, it can be a disease. Fortunately there's a nice easy treatment for the disease.

 Peregrine wrote:
In the sense of being "an undesirable condition of the body", then yes, it can be a disease.

Meaningless. In that sense, not having blue eyes can be considered a disease or injury.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sure, in a technical sense it's not a disease, but that's not really relevant unless you're a scientist or doctor analyzing the mechanisms at work.

So you're advocating the manipulation of average people?

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
In the sense of being "an undesirable condition of the body", then yes, it can be a disease.

Meaningless. In that sense, not having blue eyes can be considered a disease or injury.

Ok, fine, a temporary and curable condition. It's not a precise factual equivalence, it's an analogy, and a pretty accurate one.

 dogma wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Sure, in a technical sense it's not a disease, but that's not really relevant unless you're a scientist or doctor analyzing the mechanisms at work.

So you're advocating the manipulation of average people?

Err, what?

Not really. Sure, in a technical sense it's not a disease, but that's not really relevant unless you're a scientist or doctor analyzing the mechanisms at work. In the sense of being "an undesirable condition of the body", then yes, it can be a disease. Fortunately there's a nice easy treatment for the disease.

Its as much of a disease as any location in the body that is not exposed to the immune system (see: the eye).

 Ahtman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Wasn't it Saint Augustine who said that?

That or Judge Death, but really we are splitting hairs at that point.

Brilliant, funniest comment of the thread

As I understand it, the biggest cost in getting the pill isn't the pill itself, but the prescription. So while it might be very cheap at Walmart for the actual pill, the prescription might be a significant expense depending on the person's circumstances.

 daedalus wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I was motioning more for a sustainable birth rate, rather than a high or low one.

Which almost demands enforcing a birth rate. I mean, for every one of us willing to remove ourselves from the gene pool, there's another couple having six to eight kids. That's not sustainable.

No, that's wrong. In developed countries the birth rate is almost bang on 2 kids per woman. In some countries, like Italy, it's actually dropped to about 1.8 kids per woman.

At this point the growth in population is almost entirely in poorer countries, where gender inequality, economic choices, poor infant health, and a lack of birth control drive up the population.

None of which actually has anything to do with resource consumption, which is actually driven mostly by developed and rapidly developing countries, where the resource use per capita continues to grow rapidly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
If only there were some way, that was free, for people to not get pregnant that was for all intents and purposes 100% effective.

Unfortunately, it turns out that having people talk about abstinance is approximately 0% effective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Cute, but the issue gets rather more "sticky" when it crosses into the territory of "other people's money."

Though, with that said, I hardly think this is any sort of pressing concern.

It's a little bit of money for childcare, or a gakload of money for welfare.

Sensible people pick the option that costs less money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Sure but I don't think we should have to pay for those either. Personal responsibility is a pain but thus is life.

But the child isn't personally responsible for having been born to a mother that can't look after it. As a result, any human that is not a complete sociopath accepts that the child shoud have food, shelter, and an education. And that's a lot more expensive than providing contraception.

 sebster wrote:
Unfortunately, it turns out that having people talk about abstinance is approximately 0% effective.

That wasn't really the point.

 Peregrine wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Sure, in a technical sense it's not a disease, but that's not really relevant unless you're a scientist or doctor analyzing the mechanisms at work.

So you're advocating the manipulation of average people?

Err, what?

You said that technical classification isn't relevant unless you're a scientist or a doctor analyzing the mechanisms at work. This is a nonsense claim that implies people who are not scientists or doctors analyzing the mechanisms at work cannot understand technical definitions. It is true that it will require more effort on their part to do so, but that's irrelevant; if the issue is important to you then you should make the effort to help them understand.

Now, I can appreciate, from a political standpoint, that manipulating people is often necessary to produce expedient change, but you're not exactly going to produce expedient change by way of this forum. Moreover, I'm a bit taken aback by your apparent lack of understanding with respect to what it is you're doing, and advocating.

 sebster wrote:
As I understand it, the biggest cost in getting the pill isn't the pill itself, but the prescription. So while it might be very cheap at Walmart for the actual pill, the prescription might be a significant expense depending on the person's circumstances.

There's also an issue with finding the right pill. As with all medication that significantly alters biochemistry the wrong medication can have serious side effects.

 dogma wrote:
You said that technical classification isn't relevant unless you're a scientist or a doctor analyzing the mechanisms at work. This is a nonsense claim that implies people who are not scientists or doctors analyzing the mechanisms at work cannot understand technical definitions. It is true that it will require more effort on their part to do so, but that's irrelevant; if the issue is important to you then you should make the effort to help them understand.

I said it's not relevant, not that you can't understand it. It's very simple:

If you're a scientist or doctor working in something related to diseases then it's obviously incorrect to call pregnancy a disease, since it would be stupid to, say, insist on the use of masks because otherwise someone might catch a bad case of babies.

If you aren't one of those people (and discussing it in that context) then it's just fine to call it a disease. It isn't technically 100% correct, but it doesn't need to be. It isn't a literal scientific claim, it's an analogy.

I really have no idea where you got the idea that there was any dishonesty or manipulation involved in that comment, especially since you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that babies are literally a disease.

 Monster Rain wrote:
That wasn't really the point.

Of course not, but that's why that kind of thinking keeps producing a conclusion that sucks so bad in the real world.

Because, yeah, sure, abstinence is 100% effective at stopping pregnancy. So you should stop having sex, and it'll great work for you. But you're not the problem, it's all those highschool kids and college kids who would really struggle to raise a kid right now.

So you tell them abstinence works great. And guess what? Telling them that does feth all. Nothing. They keep having sex. Telling people about abstinence is 0% effective.

At which point, given you want to stop unwanted babies and abortions, you have to start looking at other options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
There's also an issue with finding the right pill. As with all medication that significantly alters biochemistry the wrong medication can have serious side effects.

True, cheers for the addition to my point.

Anyhoo, point is 'the pill is only $4 at Walmart' really misses the point.

I want to know where all this cheap birth control is coming from. We paid $60 a month for ours before we got non-Catholic insurance.

 Peregrine wrote:

I said it's not relevant, not that you can't understand it. It's very simple:

If I can understand it, then it is relevant. If I cannot then it isn't. You're making a weak attempt at appearing diplomatic.

 Peregrine wrote:

If you're a scientist or doctor working in something related to diseases then it's obviously incorrect to call pregnancy a disease, since it would be stupid to, say, insist on the use of masks because otherwise someone might catch a bad case of babies.

If you aren't one of those people (and discussing it in that context) then it's just fine to call it a disease. It isn't technically 100% correct, but it doesn't need to be. It isn't a literal scientific claim, it's an analogy.

No, that's either lazy or manipulative. Analogies are used to convey a concept to a person that is ignorant of it. That would be fine if you took the next step of elaboration, refusing to do so is, as said before, either lazy or manipulative.

 Peregrine wrote:

I really have no idea where you got the idea that there was any dishonesty or manipulation involved in that comment, especially since you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that babies are literally a disease.

So your argument is that we shouldn't take you literally at all, but consider your words in a literal sense?

Good job.

 dogma wrote:
No, that's either lazy or manipulative. Analogies are used to convey a concept to a person that is ignorant of it. That would be fine if you took the next step of elaboration, refusing to do so is, as said before, either lazy or manipulative.

Err, lol? How the hell is "pregnancy is like a disease" the same as saying "you're too stupid to figure out that babies aren't contagious"?

 Peregrine wrote:

Err, lol? How the hell is "pregnancy is like a disease" the same as saying "you're too stupid to figure out that babies aren't contagious"?

Is that what I said? It doesn't appear to be what I said, but then I suspect you've been trying to fight your way out of a corner for some time, so I shouldn't be surprised at the equivocation.

More importantly, how are you not intentionally misleading people if you openly recognize that babies are not contagious and that, therefore, pregnancy is not like a disease?

 dogma wrote:
More importantly, how are you not intentionally misleading people if you openly recognize that babies are not contagious and that, therefore, pregnancy is not like a disease?

Because only an utter moron would read that comment and think that it's a literal statement that babies are a contagious disease, therefore only an utter moron would be misled by it. The point of the comment does not at all depend on pregnancy literally being a disease, only that it's LIKE a disease in many ways.

All you're doing here is nitpicking for the sake of having something to argue about, while ignoring the substance of the comment in question.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because only an utter moron would read that comment and think that it's a literal statement that babies are a contagious disease, therefore only an utter moron would be misled by it.

Shocking though it may be, there exist utter morons. In fact, you analogy depends upon their existence, because no intelligent person would ever believe that pregnancy is like a disease.

 Peregrine wrote:

All you're doing here is nitpicking for the sake of having something to argue about, while ignoring the substance of the comment in question.

No, I'm deliberately annoying a person who has repeatedly annoyed me by way of self-righteousness.

 dogma wrote:
No, I'm deliberately annoying a person who has repeatedly annoyed me by way of self-righteousness.

So, trolling. At least you're honest enough to admit it.

 Peregrine wrote:

So, trolling. At least you're honest enough to admit it.

And I'm sure you'll write it off as that.

 sebster wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
That wasn't really the point.

Of course not, but that's why that kind of thinking keeps producing a conclusion that sucks so bad in the real world.

Because, yeah, sure, abstinence is 100% effective at stopping pregnancy.

There.

That was the point.

Beyond that, I don't think it's inherently morally objectionable to have people pay for their own methods of contraception for recreational sex.

All sex is recreational. There is no guarantee that a baby will result from any particular sexual event. And the point is that while not having sex is effective at preventing pregnancy (although not 100% as you claim since there are a few ways of getting pregnant without having sex), people are not 100% effective at abstinance.

The word recreational is imprecise; I apologize for using it. What I mean, what I think many of you understand that I mean, is sex that is disconnected from the kind of circumstances and relationships that tend not lead to the abortion clinic when pregnancy results.

Towards the end of my marriage, the sex wasn't that recreational.

 kronk wrote:
Towards the end of my marriage, the sex wasn't that recreational.

It's high time you changed your avatar:

If I could have him beating on a cow bell I would be soo happy!

I use my personality as a contraceptive, and it's worked thus far.

 Monster Rain wrote:
There.

That was the point.

And, as I went on to explain, that point is so simplistic that it's actually just completely wrong. Useless. Does no good. Because on matters of health policy, it doesn't matter one piece of diddly gak how something might work if people did it, when we know they don't do it.

And so it only makes sense to stop wasting time with it, and start using policies that work.

Beyond that, I don't think it's inherently morally objectionable to have people pay for their own methods of contraception for recreational sex.

It isn't about morality. It's about what works and what doesn't. Giving cheap/free contraception works. Telling people to abstain doesn't work.

 sebster wrote:
It isn't about morality.

In the context of this thread, it kind of was at points.