Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.