| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/09/2012 07:16:16 PM · #801 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Please explain this to me, how can contraception be health care?
Health care is used to fix something in our bodies. Are our bodies broken and need a daily pill to function properly? |
You mean aside from the women that use it to control a number of issues like cysts, heavy and painful periods and other such hormone issues? |
That's why I specified contraception. Those are reasons for taking the "pill" for non-contraceptively. In those case, you are taking the pill to help your body cope.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Preventative health care and proper family planning save families and our country money and resources and helps curb crime and overpopulation. There is NO real reason to oppose the affordable availability of birth control except for religious ones, and those are not relevant in the public sector. Why is this so hard to grasp? |
I'm not talking about saving our families, country, resources or crime. With our natural bodies, how is contraception considered health care? |
That's not what's even being debated. It's already been established that it IS part of provided health care packages, now there is just squabbling about who gets to veto it based on their religious beliefs. Trying to backtrack and debate semantics is not going to help you.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2012 07:26:19 PM · #802 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Please explain this to me, how can contraception be health care?
Health care is used to fix something in our bodies. Are our bodies broken and need a daily pill to function properly? |
You mean aside from the women that use it to control a number of issues like cysts, heavy and painful periods and other such hormone issues? |
That's why I specified contraception. Those are reasons for taking the "pill" for non-contraceptively. In those case, you are taking the pill to help your body cope.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Preventative health care and proper family planning save families and our country money and resources and helps curb crime and overpopulation. There is NO real reason to oppose the affordable availability of birth control except for religious ones, and those are not relevant in the public sector. Why is this so hard to grasp? |
I'm not talking about saving our families, country, resources or crime. With our natural bodies, how is contraception considered health care? |
I expect we'll see you giving the Dugger family some competition in the future. :-) |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 07:27:25 PM · #803 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm not talking about saving our families, country, resources or crime. With our natural bodies, how is contraception considered health care? |
You don't think there's a connection between pregnancy and health? |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 07:28:26 PM · #804 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
With our natural bodies, how is contraception considered health care? |
Do you brush your teeth? Yeah, oral hygiene is health care, too. What if we restrict access to toothpaste unless your teeth are broken? After all, the ensuing bad breath and tooth rot would greatly diminish recreational sex... |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 07:31:02 PM · #805 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
With our natural bodies, how is contraception considered health care? |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
I expect we'll see you giving the Dugger family some competition in the future. :-) |
lol! :-) |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 07:32:39 PM · #806 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
With our natural bodies, how is contraception considered health care? |
Do you brush your teeth? Yeah, oral hygiene is health care, too. What if we restrict access to toothpaste unless your teeth are broken? After all, the ensuing bad breath and tooth rot would greatly diminish recreational sex... |
He might consider that a good thing. |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 07:58:25 PM · #807 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
After all, the ensuing bad breath and tooth rot would greatly diminish recreational sex... |
You remind me of the highly effective garlic diet -- you don't lose much weight, but from that far away your friends all say you look much thinner. |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 08:56:50 PM · #808 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As a registered pacifist I'm getting darned tired of the overuse of the word "war," especially as applied to non-material concepts and non-human entities or organizations.
How about "there continues to be a concerted and persistent effort on the part of a large number of political/social "conservatives" and some religious organizations to further restrict and roll back the rights and opportunities for women to control their own destinies on a fully equal basis with men."? |
I sympathize with your thoughts here, but I think you just demonstrated why the word "war" is good shorthand. No one wants to say "there continues to be a concerted and persistent effort on the part of a large number of political/social "conservatives" and some religious organizations to further restrict and roll back the rights and opportunities for women to control their own destinies on a fully equal basis with men" every time they want to communicate what's happening politically in the U.S. right now, although it's certainly useful to spell it out once in a while. |
If it has to be called a war then call it the war on the present (or progress). Republicans want to relive the 1700s and so the groups of people who got screwed back then are the same groups getting screwed today by their policies. It's as simple as that. |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 09:30:12 PM · #809 |
Originally posted by yanko:
If it has to be called a war then call it the war on the present (or progress). Republicans want to relive the 1700s and so the groups of people who got screwed back then are the same groups getting screwed today by their policies. It's as simple as that. |
There was an excellent article on this. Not sure if I posted it here already but I'll post again anyway.
"My guess is that this nostalgic vision of the 50's (or really the pre-1960s, let's be honest) is due to the way in which the country in those days seemed to be so clearly white, protestant, straight, etc, and how the 1960s and 70s confronted the nation with its warts, with its injustices, none of which white America wanted to see. They remember those days fondly because it was before they had to share the notion of Americanness with those who were fundamentally different, racially, culturally, ethnically and so on. It was a time of "innocence" to them, even as it was a time of intense racial terror for millions. That's why the cries of "I want my country back" are so clearly about race, at least in terms of their background noise."
Full Article: Tim Wise on White Resentment in a Multiracial Society |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 09:41:10 PM · #810 |
May I post a non-BC insurance-related enigma to you all? :
My friend may have to pay 1200 to remove one wisdom tooth and I had to pay about 2000 for all 4.
Now... I called my dental insurance company and they told me that wisdom teeth fell under medical insurance if they are a danger to your health. I only had bare bones coverage (emergencies only pretty much), so medical also didn't cover them. I spent 2 years paying off the cost on a credit card.
BUT, I've also had friends tell me that their insurance company says it's a "cosmetic" procedure and won't cover it.
So which is: it necessary for health or purely cosmetic? Well the answer is: It's up to the damn doctor and patient what's necessary, not the company. These insurance agents that are not doctors, should NOT have the power to make these kinds of calls. And neither should your employer. When you take out a topic as heated as BC, and replace it with something as neutral as teeth, the story becomes a lot more clear.
Message edited by author 2012-03-09 21:46:33. |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 09:45:13 PM · #811 |
| Wisdom Abscess vs. Absence of Wisdom. May the most money win. |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 10:03:30 PM · #812 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
May I post a non-BC insurance-related enigma to you all? :
My friend may have to pay 1200 to remove one wisdom tooth and I had to pay about 2000 for all 4.
Now... I called my dental insurance company and they told me that wisdom teeth fell under medical insurance if they are a danger to your health. I only had bare bones coverage (emergencies only pretty much), so medical also didn't cover them. I spent 2 years paying off the cost on a credit card.
BUT, I've also had friends tell me that their insurance company says it's a "cosmetic" procedure and won't cover it.
So which is: it necessary for health or purely cosmetic? Well the answer is: It's up to the damn doctor and patient what's necessary, not the company. These insurance agents that are not doctors, should NOT have the power to make these kinds of calls. And neither should your employer. When you take out a topic as heated as BC, and replace it with something as neutral as teeth, the story becomes a lot more clear. |
So wait, your tooth was beginning to grow a brain and other organs? No wonder it's called a wisdom tooth. :P |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 10:13:18 PM · #813 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
May I post a non-BC insurance-related enigma to you all? :
My friend may have to pay 1200 to remove one wisdom tooth and I had to pay about 2000 for all 4.
Now... I called my dental insurance company and they told me that wisdom teeth fell under medical insurance if they are a danger to your health. I only had bare bones coverage (emergencies only pretty much), so medical also didn't cover them. I spent 2 years paying off the cost on a credit card.
BUT, I've also had friends tell me that their insurance company says it's a "cosmetic" procedure and won't cover it.
So which is: it necessary for health or purely cosmetic? Well the answer is: It's up to the damn doctor and patient what's necessary, not the company. These insurance agents that are not doctors, should NOT have the power to make these kinds of calls. And neither should your employer. When you take out a topic as heated as BC, and replace it with something as neutral as teeth, the story becomes a lot more clear. |
So wait, your tooth was beginning to grow a brain and other organs? No wonder it's called a wisdom tooth. :P |
Crazy right? :P You know what I mean. It's not about a tooth being as big a deal as a baby, it's about WHO gets to make the choices, and it shouldn't be insurers and employers who don't know the full situation and are not qualified to make those calls. |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 10:29:36 PM · #814 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by yanko:
If it has to be called a war then call it the war on the present (or progress). Republicans want to relive the 1700s and so the groups of people who got screwed back then are the same groups getting screwed today by their policies. It's as simple as that. |
There was an excellent article on this. Not sure if I posted it here already but I'll post again anyway.
"My guess is that this nostalgic vision of the 50's (or really the pre-1960s, let's be honest) is due to the way in which the country in those days seemed to be so clearly white, protestant, straight, etc, and how the 1960s and 70s confronted the nation with its warts, with its injustices, none of which white America wanted to see. They remember those days fondly because it was before they had to share the notion of Americanness with those who were fundamentally different, racially, culturally, ethnically and so on. It was a time of "innocence" to them, even as it was a time of intense racial terror for millions. That's why the cries of "I want my country back" are so clearly about race, at least in terms of their background noise."
Full Article: Tim Wise on White Resentment in a Multiracial Society |
Yeah back then everything was great for them. Never mind that their own ideology caused all of the problems they complain about today. Conservatism is like a how-to book for making people, over the long haul, more liberal. |
|
|
|
03/09/2012 10:37:56 PM · #815 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by yanko:
If it has to be called a war then call it the war on the present (or progress). Republicans want to relive the 1700s and so the groups of people who got screwed back then are the same groups getting screwed today by their policies. It's as simple as that. |
There was an excellent article on this. Not sure if I posted it here already but I'll post again anyway.
"My guess is that this nostalgic vision of the 50's (or really the pre-1960s, let's be honest) is due to the way in which the country in those days seemed to be so clearly white, protestant, straight, etc, and how the 1960s and 70s confronted the nation with its warts, with its injustices, none of which white America wanted to see. They remember those days fondly because it was before they had to share the notion of Americanness with those who were fundamentally different, racially, culturally, ethnically and so on. It was a time of "innocence" to them, even as it was a time of intense racial terror for millions. That's why the cries of "I want my country back" are so clearly about race, at least in terms of their background noise."
Full Article: Tim Wise on White Resentment in a Multiracial Society |
Yeah back then everything was great for them. Never mind that their own ideology caused all of the problems they complain about today. Conservatism is like a how-to book for making people, over the long haul, more liberal. |
Hard to get all nostalgic about Leave it to Beaver juxtaposed against an era of people getting away with lynchings and other atrocities by a jury of their "peers". Oh boy those were the good ole days! We had those water fountains and bus seats and schools all to ourselves! We neeeever had to look at the mess our ancestors made with that whole slavery thing. Eww. Debbie Downer. Let's just bake some cookies shall we?
Good thing the Natives stick around the reservations. Wouldn't want to face THAT ugly past either. No no. They can just stay right there on that crappy land they were given, come no further out. Thaattt's right. At this safe distance we can pretend we don't discriminate against them either and accuse them of taking "hand-outs" .(I had a friend say just that the other day and I just about lost it. It's like a mob of bandits taking your house and then accusing you for being a lazy mooch cus they gave you a loaf of bread from your own pantry.)
**Burries head in sand repeating "I earned everything I have! I deserve it! La la la la. Shhh..."** |
|
|
|
03/10/2012 01:15:35 AM · #816 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Hard to get all nostalgic about Leave it to Beaver juxtaposed against an era of people getting away with lynchings and other atrocities by a jury of their "peers". Oh boy those were the good ole days! We had those water fountains and bus seats and schools all to ourselves! We neeeever had to look at the mess our ancestors made with that whole slavery thing. Eww. Debbie Downer. Let's just bake some cookies shall we? |
National Brotherhood Week
Words and music by Tom Lehrer © 1965
One week of every year is designated National Brotherhood Week. This is just one of many such weeks honoring various worthy causes. One of my favorites is National Make-Fun-Of-The-Handicapped Week, which Frank Fontaine and Jerry Lewis are in charge of as you know. During National Brotherhood Week various special events are arranged to drive home the message of brotherhood - this year, for example, on the first day of the week, Malcolm X was killed,* which gives you an idea of how effective the whole thing is.
I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another, and I know there are people in the world who do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that! Here's a song about National Brotherhood Week.
Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks;
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule.
But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark are dancing cheek to cheek.
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise
As long as you don't let 'em in your school.
Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
All of my folks hate all of your folks,
It's American as apple pie.
But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans 'cause it's very chic.
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand,
You can tolerate him if you try!
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.
But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
It's National Everyone-Smile-At-One-Another-Hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It's only for a week, so have no fear;
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year! |
|
|
|
03/10/2012 06:02:40 AM · #817 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Please explain this to me, how can contraception be health care?
Health care is used to fix something in our bodies. Are our bodies broken and need a daily pill to function properly? |
You mean aside from the women that use it to control a number of issues like cysts, heavy and painful periods and other such hormone issues? |
That's why I specified contraception. Those are reasons for taking the "pill" for non-contraceptively. In those case, you are taking the pill to help your body cope.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Preventative health care and proper family planning save families and our country money and resources and helps curb crime and overpopulation. There is NO real reason to oppose the affordable availability of birth control except for religious ones, and those are not relevant in the public sector. Why is this so hard to grasp? |
I'm not talking about saving our families, country, resources or crime. With our natural bodies, how is contraception considered health care? |
OK...Take a deep breath, sit back, read it again... then go back and read the comment made by  Bear_Music at item #787 and then you might understand that it truly is a health care issue.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/10/2012 07:28:54 AM · #818 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Yes, what about all the non-abortion pieces of legislation? I'm afraid it doesn't matter how much information we provide here, for those who choose to remain ignorant and blind. |
Really? Ignorant and blind? To what? My beef is with the semantics of declaring it a "war on women". To me, that means the legislation is being passed to combat...women. Why am I supporting this bill? Because you are a WOMAN! and you need to be stopped. It just strikes me as inflammatory spin. Could it be a "war on abortion"? By all means. That war has been waged since 1973. The contraception issue is also complicated by the religious issue that started this whole thread. Is anybody actually trying to ban birth control (if that's the case then I do plead ignorance but would not agree with such an idea)?
I mean, look at Monica's list she linked.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
I'm a big fan of Head Start and think the Republicans are misguided in their efforts to cut it, but how is this a "war on WOMEN"? The stretch is enormous. I could just as easily call it a "war on Americans" or "war on Children" or "war on education" or "war on breakfast" (since Head Start often has reduced or free breakfast). Americans, children, education and breakfasts are affected by the move, but it's not the raison d'etre for the bill. I'm sure if the Republicans were to give it a title it would be a "war on government spending". Do you see my point? |
I'm thinking a lot of women don't see your point... //www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/GGPresVote.pdf |
|
|
|
03/10/2012 08:07:30 AM · #819 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Please explain this to me, how can contraception be health care?
Health care is used to fix something in our bodies. Are our bodies broken and need a daily pill to function properly? |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
You mean aside from the women that use it to control a number of issues like cysts, heavy and painful periods and other such hormone issues? Have you ignored that? The very reason Fluke was testifying? I have lesbian friends on birth control for those very reasons and (obviously) no others. |
He likes to use his blinders and selective memory....in post #569 I responded to his "Birth control pill cancer threat" by mentioning this very thing.
My daughter is one of those women.....her cycle was so radical that she'd become anemic and could hardly move. It has been regulated and compensated for by use of the pill.
It's nice to know that my daughter won't pass out behind the wheel of a car because she commits the sin of taking birth control pills.
This to me is all too typical of the senseless blindness to the real world that religious believers adhere to despite all proof to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2012 08:25:13 AM · #820 |
|
|
|
03/10/2012 08:35:34 AM · #821 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Please explain this to me, how can contraception be health care?
Health care is used to fix something in our bodies. Are our bodies broken and need a daily pill to function properly? |
By the way, are the only times you have sex for procreation? If not, then you're a hypocrite and a fool. Prayer and hope are lousy contraceptives. It is sensible to use contraception if you don't want to burden the world as a whole with an unwanted child.
Originally posted by Nullix:
That's why I specified contraception. Those are reasons for taking the "pill" for non-contraceptively. In those case, you are taking the pill to help your body cope. |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Preventative health care and proper family planning save families and our country money and resources and helps curb crime and overpopulation. There is NO real reason to oppose the affordable availability of birth control except for religious ones, and those are not relevant in the public sector. Why is this so hard to grasp? |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm not talking about saving our families, country, resources or crime. With our natural bodies, how is contraception considered health care? |
It *IS* about saving our families, country, resources, and crime. Why is this so hard to grasp?????
Being opposed to birth control in this world today is quite simply irresponsible.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2012 08:43:31 AM · #822 |
I just know that they're going to try and cry censorship, but that will hardly fly when it's their audience that thinks they just go too far.
'Bout time.....
|
|
|
|
03/10/2012 09:25:04 AM · #823 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
With our natural bodies, how is contraception considered health care? |
Do you brush your teeth? Yeah, oral hygiene is health care, too. What if we restrict access to toothpaste unless your teeth are broken? After all, the ensuing bad breath and tooth rot would greatly diminish recreational sex... |
I brush my teeth because I have a high sugar diet. The sugars stay on my teeth, but shouldn't be there in the first place. It's unnatural diet that causes this.
Is giving birth so unnatural that we have to take a pill or mutilate our bodies to prevent this natural act? |
|
|
|
03/10/2012 11:12:46 AM · #824 |
|
|
|
03/10/2012 11:52:43 AM · #825 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I brush my teeth because I have a high sugar diet. The sugars stay on my teeth, but shouldn't be there in the first place. It's unnatural diet that causes this. |
Your body runs on sugars, genius. Without carbohydrates, you would naturally die. |
|
