Check out some similar questions!

excon · Mar 5, 2012, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

It is a rediculous proposition and I will not engage in it futher .

Hello again, tom:

You DO keep engaging in it, only to say that it's wrong.. You offer NOTHING to support your supposition, which is VERY untom like. Me theenks you don't want to discuss it, just like yours, and the Limpone's parents, didn't want to discuss SEX.

I won't push further, but your refusal to engage me, says a LOT. I'd LIKE to be disabused of the fact that the right wing is CLUELESS when it comes to how a woman's body works. Maybe Steve will do it.

excon

excon · Mar 5, 2012, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by TUT317

I think the problem is that it would be very difficult, if not impossible to isolate a particular group and claim they have a lack of biological knowedge.

Hello TUT:

I agree. But, we've GOT a particular group isolated right here on THESE pages. If only they'd engage me on this issue, but they seem reluctant. I don't recall them being so reluctant to engage me on OTHER left wing loony ideas. Their silence is deafening.

excon

speechlesstx · Mar 5, 2012, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello TUT:

I agree. But, we've GOT a particular group isolated right here on THESE pages. If only they'd engage me on this issue, but they seem reluctant. I don't recall them being so reluctant to engage me on OTHER left wing loony ideas. Their silence is deafening.

excon

Really ex? You think we - or Rush - don't understand the female reproductive system? You keep flip flopping from the Libertarian I used to know to the shrieking liberal that thinks conservatives are too stupid to know anything. I've engaged you on this for what 3-4 weeks now?

It simply boils down to this, you think I should be forced to pay for every woman's birth control because they're a "protected class." I think we should keep the first amendment and women should buy their own contraceptives.

I think it's a shame that the women's empowerment movement keeps finding ways to turn women into helpless victims that can't do anything on their own.

talaniman · Mar 5, 2012, 08:03 AM

The rights of other people is not the strength of the right wing. Only their own. The same guys hollering about female medical stuff are the same ones who blame feminism for males being out of work.

The only way they can have power and value is to make sure everyone doesn't. Ask Santorum. When the pope says NO pills, that means everybody.

J_9 · Mar 5, 2012, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

It simply boils down to this, you think I should be forced to pay for every woman's birth control because they're a "protected class." I think we should keep the first amendment and women should buy their own contraceptives.

OR, we can continue to support the children of welfare. What's less expensive?

talaniman · Mar 5, 2012, 08:10 AM

Pro life only cares about babies, not the children or person they will become. That's why they argue about when life begins, not where it ends up!

J_9 · Mar 5, 2012, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Pro life only cares about babies, not the children or person they will become. Thats why they argue about when life begins, not where it ends up!

I totally agree with this sentiment. Couldn't give you a greenie though Tal. Although I am a L&D nurse, that doesn't necessarily make me pro-life.

speechlesstx · Mar 5, 2012, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Pro life only cares about babies, not the children or person they will become. Thats why they argue about when life begins, not where it ends up!

Tal, that's the most ignorant straw man argument I think I've ever seen. How many World Vision, Compassion Intl, Save the Children, Manna Ministries, etc. children do you sponsor every month?

Do you volunteer as a Big Brother, Boy Scout leader, Sunday School teacher, youth league worker, etc. Who is forcing the church to either have leftists ideology forced on them or close orphanages, feeding centers, hospitals, clinics and homeless shelters?

Don't feed me that we don't care about "the children or person they will become" line of BS. My wife and I support 4 children every month that we've never met and I'd care for every child in need personally if I could do so. I do my part, do you? Perhaps if every liberal that throws out that pathetic line would put their money where their mouth is there would be no more children in need.

Correction, make that put "their OWN" money where there mouth is instead of taking MY money to buy contraceptives for some woman who can't control her sexual urges.

J_9 · Mar 5, 2012, 08:26 AM

I work at a religious hospital, so I can understand where Tal is coming from. These people don't see the fetus as (excuse me for sounding harsh) a parasite on the mother until the time of viability, but they see it as a human from the time of conception. They don't care that this baby is born to a 13 year old child and will most likely grow up in the "system" to be a gang member and again pregnant at the age of 13. But rather that it is a "life" from the time the sperm meets the egg.

These people do not realize that that zygote/fetus cannot survive outside of the womb until at LEAST 24 weeks of gestation and then, most likely, will have long lasting permanent physiological and/or mental disabilities for the rest of it's life draining us of our tax dollars to pay for medical/occupational/physical therapies.

tomder55 · Mar 5, 2012, 08:29 AM

If you'll allow another observation from the uneducated...
So then it's simply a matter of economics ? I see... Wouldn't tubal ligation for all welfare recipients or vascectomies be much more economical than distribution of the pill ;which aren't without short an long term adverse side-effect ?

Margaret Sanger should have a day of honor;a national holiday , along with President's day ,for her eugenics solutions .

J_9 · Mar 5, 2012, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Wouldn't tubal ligation for all welfare recepients or vascectomies be much more economical than distribution of the pill ;which aren't without short an long term adverse side-effect ?

I agree, however there is a certain age limit. This limit is dictated by locality. Where I am (I can't speak for vasectomies) a woman has to be 24 (I believe) and have had at least 2 children. After which she can have the tubal done at the tax payers costs. The reasoning behind this is if she has a tubal at the age of 19, after one child, her circumstances may change and that she wishes to have children 10 years later with a man she is actually married to. A tubal reversal is controversial in that it may or may not work and is much more expensive.

The depo-provera shot is considered long acting and can take as long as 18 months to a year for contraception to happen once the woman begins treatment. It is an intramuscular injection given once every 12 weeks. It has a low failure rate compared to the birth control pill. Then there is the Mirena IUD that lasts 5 years and is no longer effective after the 5 year mark.

tomder55 · Mar 5, 2012, 08:46 AM

The bigger issue here is that I have to congratulate the Obots for ginning up this phony controversy . It is a big diversion from the real issues facing the nation. FACT ;there is no shortage of supply of inexpensive contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnencies .

Again ;as I've mentioned already in this thread ; I have no issue with the medication if it is being prescribed for a specific condition that a doctor diagnoses . However ;the Catholic Church and any other religious institution has a right to object to this heavy handed action by the administration,of requring that they cover contraception for the purpose of birth control . It is in complete violation of the 1st Amendment .

talaniman · Mar 5, 2012, 08:53 AM

There you guys go, in the face of scientific facts you turn to opinion and name calling.

speechlesstx · Mar 5, 2012, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by J_9

.. They don't care that this baby is born to a 13 year old child and will most likely grow up in the "system" to be a gang member and again pregnant at the age of 13...

I most definitely care. Perhaps if this culture and Planned Parenthood would stop pushing sex on our children we'd have fewer 13-year-olds giving birth.

J_9 · Mar 5, 2012, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I most definitely care. Perhaps if this culture and Planned Parenthood would stop pushing sex on our children we'd have fewer 13-year-olds giving birth.

Care to elaborate? Remember, this is my profession. I'm not going to agree nor disagree (my legaleze coming out), but I see it more the media pushing sex on our children.

speechlesstx · Mar 5, 2012, 09:14 AM

I have posted extensively on Planned Parenthood, but this will do for now (though Youtube keeps pulling the plug on the video). I don't think PP has any business tell 10-year-olds how to masturbate.

excon · Mar 5, 2012, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Again ;as I've mentioned already in this thread ; I have no issue with the medication if it is being prescribed for a specific condition that a doctor diagnoses .

Hello again, tom:

Then you'd be AGAINST prescribing Viagra for recreation purposes.. How come you don't talk about that?

excon

speechlesstx · Mar 5, 2012, 09:34 AM

Noted leftist, feminist, Democrat politician Donna Brazile says there should be no government role in birth control. I agree.

tomder55 · Mar 5, 2012, 09:36 AM

Then you'd be AGAINST prescribing Viagra for recreation purposes.. How come you don't talk about that?

Of course ! Why haven't I mentioned it ? No one asked me.

tomder55 · Mar 5, 2012, 10:43 AM

you turn to opinion and name calling.

Tal... I refer you to the 1st sentence of this op.
It's clear that Limprod knows NOTHING about a woman's reproductive organs..

I believe you used that "name calling " in your 1st reply too.