How is making women pay out of pocket for their own Conctraceptives "A war on Women"?

Demanding personal responsibility for such a societally impactful act is not misogyny.

 

Maybe.
But a recent article in the magazine, Foriegn Affairs, says America's problems are due. inpart to Attack Groups.

The article suggests that a culture law making has come in the form of a Political Correctness.
It is form of rules imposed on us not unlike the Laqs passed by the Institution of Law and Order.
But the "rules" are part of the Cultural Institution which has had Attack Groups manage to get politicians or social attitudes to mandate things like the crime of using the "N" word, or practicing Homophobia, or the crime of hating one group or another, etc.


Attack Groupo have had success which makes people accept rules of behavior without further protest or rational discussion.

The present current events wil see the lyching iof that guywho shot the 14 year boy.
The mere possibility that this Puerto Rica man did not like black people has brought out the Black Attack Group, including Al Sharpton who wrongly did the same attacking which has made him a household name.


.

 

How does your point of view account for an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure?

 

Why do you believe making contraception more easily obtainable is a form of irresponsibility?

 

From my perspective, that has more to do with abandoning an Iron Age moral of doing unto others as we would have them do unto us.

 

It would slow down the hot and bothered little girls out here from giving up the goods too soon. if they know they have to pay for their own BC pills or whatever, they are gonna have a moment to think. and that's what they need, that one moment to think before they act. it's a perfect idea.

Make em pay.

 

If it's such a socially meaningful act, shouldn't we be providing people with all of the knowledge/options available to make sure that it doesn't become a burden to society?

 

Why do you believe they need to be slowed down if they will not increase our tax burden in the manner that it is being increased under our current regime?

From my perspective, we may be better off if it were socially acceptable for women to use men for sex until men clamor for a relationship, merely so we won't have to bear false witness for sex; merely and ostensibly, for the greater glory of our immortal souls.

 

If a woman needs the pill for non-sexual medical reasons, and you call her a slut, that's misogynistic. If a woman uses it to avoid unwanted pregnancy within a marriage, and you call her a slut, that's misogynistic. To paint all women on the pill as sluts, which is what you are doing when you call birth control pills "slut medicine," is misogynistic. If your intent is to just shame promiscuous women, then stop using the same brush to paint all women who use the pill. It's that simple. What's hilarious is that these promiscuous women who are getting abortions and having kids out of wedlock aren't even on the pill (as evidenced by their pregnancies). Calling the pill "slut medicine" doesn't even imply that these women are sluts because they clearly aren't using it. You're failing on multiple levels.

Also, I don't believe for a second that 1/3rd of all pregnancies are aborted, and that another 1/3rd are born to parents out of wedlock. Even if they are, it's irrelevant to the fact that calling the birth control pill "slut medicine" is attacking all women who use it as sluts. Stop carpet bombing and people will stop accusing you of carpet bombing.

 

Strawman.

Contraception is nearly as attainable as a hamburger.

 

We've already done that - which is why not one syllable of Fluke's rant had anything to do with lack of ability to cypher options.

I'll ask you now to produce someone who doesn't know about options.

 

The children of "abstinence-only" education individuals.

 

Being insensitive towards the minor grievances of liberal women is not "misogyny".

You people completely redefine terms like "racism" and "misogyny" to include basically any belief that women and minorities can actually do things on their own without the assistance of big brother Government.

Why are women and minorities so weak that they can't survive in our society without Government intervention?

 

Oh brother, Dave. Obviously, if someone chose to be educated on the topic - but not in the manner in which you "approve", it isn't that the alternative isn't known, but that it is rejected.

Only liberals demand perfection from a concept that isn't theirs, and flaunt it as a failure if perfection isn't attained.

You still haven't offered any evidence that they didn't know, but rather ignored it.

You and I both know you're jousting windmills, Dave. This is about realistic discussion engaged with honest intent. You should already know that there is such an incredible amount of education on this topic that no more education is needed.

What is needed now is enforcement of personal responsibility. It may as well be garlic to a vampire with liberals, however.

 

We can't teach about contraception in the schools due to Republicans, and we know that many parents aren't going to be a source of information on the topic either. So where are these kids getting their information about the benefits and risks of each type of birth control? Where are they getting the information about how to discuss contraception with a partner? The media? Their dumbass friends?

 

Because today's woman is the result of 50 years of propaganda, all one sided, in which women have been told since birth they can have it all, a family (only when they want it) an husband (not really necessary), a high paying job of their choice, as many female friends as desired all believing exactly the same as they do, and many of life's little necessities are 'rights' and as such, MUST be provided free or at very little cost (paid for by undefined others).

Add in the iron grip the left has on the schools and the propaganda directed at those brains of mush so as to guarantee the idea of the free lunch is locked forever in their young heads.

Any intrusion of reality onto this fantasy land is a direct assault on 'women'...how can they have it all if they have to pay for some of it?

Why, they have a 'right'...they have been told as much for half a century!

 

I don't normally agree with you SM, but more to your point, no one in the GOP is even trying to ban health insurance providers from covering contraception. It's simply a question of weather health insurance should be mandated, by law, to cover it. And guess what: if it were not mandated by law, most health insurance providers would cover it anyway, which means most women would still get their contraception for "free." Only difference is that without this mandate, the insurance companies would be allowed to offer plans that don't cover it. Say, for a particularly religious client who wants a plan that reflects its religious doctrine, in which case employees of that client would have to pay for their BC out of pocket. It does not seem that terrible.

 

Why do we have more, rather than less, costs for social welfare spending that could be attributed as a pound of cure, instead of an ounce of prevention, if what you claim is true?

 

How is insisting any consumer of Statism buy an "Edsel" any form of choice for those consumers. Why not insist on better infrastructure which may render the medical procedure of abortion, obsolete in modern times?

 

Yes, the point is as you say, that we ought supply contraceptives for free since giving them away in our schools and at Planned Parenthood has not stemmed the consistent annual number of abortions every year nor the rising number of illegitimate babies.

Maybe the adolescents and young people will start demonstrating the same Safe Sex that Ms Fluke at age 29 is so adamantly demanding free rubbers and pills for herself by now.

I would hate to have waited another ten years to discover that this whole thing merely paid for adults who are not the problem to use free condoms of their choice and color.

nevertheless, the one thing about the left liberal thinkiing that sticks in my throat is that their Darwinist Social Experiments never are deemed Fail, but only claimed to need more tinkering.

Sexual license that claimed their is no social harm in the promiscuity that began withthe feminist revolution in 1960 is still tauted as merely giving a woman the god given rights over deciding how she will use her own bady.

There has been correlation with the now $10,5 Trillion Welfare Budget the USA must now fork over to these feminists.
Nor is there any rational discussion about really stopping Welfare.

In fact, the whole Welfare System is NOW a democratic constiuency.
The Welfare system is even demanding more Food Stamps and advertising to people that they need check and see if they can get some.


The Safe Sex answer to stopping unmarried women from getting pregnant started Sex Education that large reversed the traditional religious approach of never mentioning sex as if it was not polite, while shaming people who were overtly sexually suggestive.

Yet, since Roe Vs Wade in 1973, the dame exact numbers of Abortions have taken place every single year.

These facts do not impact the women at all, who simply "feel" it just isn't right to tell people that they are sluts and shamefully immoral and unwelcome among polite people if they get pregnant without marriage.

 

I don't think anyone would have thought it to be a war on women if it ended with this. But, after you go around calling basically any woman who requests or suggests that birth control should be paid a slut or a whore - then you start digging your own grave.That's not including laws where doctors have the right or are supposed to lie to their patients if it will prevent an abortion and women have to get an ultra sound if they want to get an abortion.

You either want one or the other. You simply CANNOT be a social conservative and still be a conservative. The two political viewpoints are on opposite ends of the spectrum and it boggles my mind how they ever came together

 

?
Where have you been for ten years?

Public Schools do teach Sex Education classes, and they even pass out condoms, with the advice that more can be acquired upon demand.

The whole mantra of Safe Sex" is on every kids lips.
Pre-teen boys are so well informed that their number one fear turns out to be getting AIDS.

Yet the same 1.2 million abortions occur every year for 45 years now.

 

This post is incredible in its irony in blaming Obama and "Progressives" for the "conflict"!

Its the RIGHT WING that is claiming that allowing women equality in company-paid health care benefits is "Stealing freedom", "forcing religions to go against their conscience", and all the other bunkum they are spewing.

 

Ended?

For 45 years the tax payers have watched Welfare baloon and become the largest democratic voting block because that party increases benefits and defends women whose only problem is they have babies other peole have to pay for.

The women may not be sexually promiscuous women, i.e.; Sluts.
But the democrats are certainly Pimps.




Stop Welfare to new cases of single motherhood, or explain how the $10.5 Trillion dollars in the budget is going to get paid.

 

That is the reason they hate Sarah Palin, because they can not just dismiss the whole issue by simply attacking the messenger as a woman hater.

After 60 years now, and the obvious social problems caused by accepting female promiscuity it is about time to call a slut a slut.

1) 75% of all violent crime comes from kids who were raised by Single Mothers.

2) Welfare has built a system that is in bed with the democrats who these single mothers help elect.

3) Half of all births are illegitimate.

If these consequences are not evidence of manymany sluts, what is it?