I want you to stay out of my bedroom, but pay for what goes on inside!

[tooAlive]

perhaps people would wait a bit longer before having sex.

So I'd be in favor of a bit more restrictions in that sense.

We already have one of the lowest birth and fertility rates. You will never stop people from having sex, no matter what restrictions there are.

Can we cut money from other things first though? Like 2 billion dollar oil company subsidies?

There are plenty of places where we could start cutting some spending. But oil subsidies aren't keeping people from being successful.

An ever-increasing entitlement mentality is, however.

 

[tooAlive]

Also you dodged the issue of would you rather pay to care for impoverished children instead?

Don't we already pay for that?

If choosing one would imply not having to pay for the other, I'd pick contraceptives.

But since we're already stuck with one and doesn't look like it'll be going anywhere anytime soon, I don't want to add another entitlement into the mix.

 

[OriginalShroom]

yeah 51 percent of voters are women.

keep it up white boys club

I'll point out hypocrisy when I see it.

Regardless what percent of voters it's in.

You are mistaken about Ms. Fluke's stand (or at least the stand she took during Congressional testimony).

I am going to correct several of the "Facts" born by the left..

1 - I never heard anyone arguing that if BC were needed for a medical condition, and was approved by the FDA as a treatment for that condition, that it shouldn't be covered under Medical Insurance. It was only when women asked for birth control for the purposed of birth control that women should pay for it.

2 - Viagra is used by men to medically treat a problem with their bodies. Just women use viagra to correct problems caused by their use of antidepressants. Birth control pills, when used for birth control do not correct a problem, but inhibit the body from acting as it was intended to.

3 - Sandra Fluke did demand that all forms of birth control be given to women without any co-pays or increase in insurance rates.

4 - Sandra Fluke knew prior to becoming a student at George Town that Birth Control for use as birth control was not covered under their standard student insurance policy. It was covered when prescribed for treatment for illnesses. She was given the option to purchase another policy at a slightly higher rate that would have covered all forms of birth control, but declined it.

5 - Sandra Fluke was not refused a seat to testify before the Congress as the Democrats claim.
She was told that her testimony that she was scheduled to give was not rellivant to the particular panel that was being seated, which was to discuss the 1st Amendment implications of forcing Religious based institutions to pay for birth control. She could have testified at another time, on panel to which her testimony would have been better suited.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

yeah 51 percent of voters are women.

keep it up white boys club

I'll point out hypocrisy when I see it.

Regardless what percent of voters it's in.

You "conservatives" need to get-over your obsession with the fact everyone (else) is having more fun than you.​

 

[tooAlive]

I'll point out hypocrisy when I see it.

Regardless what percent of voters it's in.

You are mistaken about Ms. Fluke's stand (or at least the stand she took during Congressional testimony).

I am going to correct several of the "Facts" born by the left..

1 - I never heard anyone arguing that if BC were needed for a medical condition, and was approved by the FDA as a treatment for that condition, that it shouldn't be covered under Medical Insurance. It was only when women asked for birth control for the purposed of birth control that women should pay for it.

2 - Viagra is used by men to medically treat a problem with their bodies. Just women use viagra to correct problems caused by their use of antidepressants. Birth control pills, when used for birth control do not correct a problem, but inhibit the body from acting as it was intended to.

3 - Sandra Fluke did demand that all forms of birth control be given to women without any co-pays or increase in insurance rates.

4 - Sandra Fluke knew prior to becoming a student at George Town that Birth Control for use as birth control was not covered under their standard student insurance policy. It was covered when prescribed for treatment for illnesses. She was given the option to purchase another policy at a slightly higher rate that would have covered all forms of birth control, but declined it.

5 - Sandra Fluke was not refused a seat to testify before the Congress as the Democrats claim.
She was told that her testimony that she was scheduled to give was not rellivant to the particular panel that was being seated, which was to discuss the 1st Amendment implications of forcing Religious based institutions to pay for birth control. She could have testified at another time, on panel to which her testimony would have been better suited.

Thanks for scaring all the liberals away from my thread.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Sorry. ;(

 

[tooAlive]

Sorry. ;(

Ahh, no worries. It was bound to happen.

Conservative threads are only good until all the facts are on the table. Then the liberals just stop showing up.

 

[Agit8r]

I would certainly rather chip in for her birth control than chip in to incarcerate her unwanted child.

Just sayin'

 

[tooAlive]

I would certainly rather chip in for her birth control than chip in to incarcerate her unwanted child.

Just sayin'

That's a valid point.

However, I don't think tax-payers should be responsible to subsidize others because of their own carelessness or poor decisions. At least not to the current extent.

 

[Agit8r]

I would certainly rather chip in for her birth control than chip in to incarcerate her unwanted child.

Just sayin'

That's a valid point.

However, I don't think tax-payers should be responsible to subsidize others because of their own carelessness or poor decisions. At least not to the current extent.

They shouldn't, but they will regardless, one way or another. Whether they get a handout from the gov't directly, or from a charity whose donations get written off someone's taxes, or whether irresponsible parents raise kids that damage one's property, or perhaps even all of the above, there will be a cost to society. I'd just assume take the most proactive (and usually least costly) approach available.

 

[tooAlive]

I would certainly rather chip in for her birth control than chip in to incarcerate her unwanted child.

Just sayin'

That's a valid point.

However, I don't think tax-payers should be responsible to subsidize others because of their own carelessness or poor decisions. At least not to the current extent.

They shouldn't, but they will regardless, one way or another. Whether they get a handout from the gov't directly, or from a charity whose donations get written off someone's taxes, or whether irresponsible parents raise kids that damage one's property, or perhaps even all of the above, there will be a cost to society. I'd just assume take the most proactive (and usually least costly) approach available.

I understand your point and that some things are simply unavoidable.

I'm just talking about the moral aspect. The government is rewarding those that make the bad decisions, all while making it harder on the honest ones that are working the hardest. All I'm saying is to restrict things a little more instead of adding to the entitlement pool.

Once people actually have to deal with the consequences of their actions, perhaps they'll be a little smarter.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I would certainly rather chip in for her birth control than chip in to incarcerate her unwanted child.

Just sayin'

That's a valid point.

However, I don't think tax-payers should be responsible to subsidize others because of their own carelessness or poor decisions. At least not to the current extent.

They shouldn't, but they will regardless, one way or another. Whether they get a handout from the gov't directly, or from a charity whose donations get written off someone's taxes, or whether irresponsible parents raise kids that damage one's property, or perhaps even all of the above, there will be a cost to society. I'd just assume take the most proactive (and usually least costly) approach available.

Not the point. A company that should not have to supply health insurance that covers something that is against their religion. Company meaning Church, school, or where the owners of said company are of strong religions background such as Hobby Lobby, which is even closed on Sunday because of the owners religious beliefs. 1st amendment gives us freedom of religion, So our laws should not interfere with that.

 

[candycorn]

I'll point out hypocrisy when I see it.

Regardless what percent of voters it's in.

You are mistaken about Ms. Fluke's stand (or at least the stand she took during Congressional testimony).

I am going to correct several of the "Facts" born by the left..

1 - I never heard anyone arguing that if BC were needed for a medical condition, and was approved by the FDA as a treatment for that condition, that it shouldn't be covered under Medical Insurance. It was only when women asked for birth control for the purposed of birth control that women should pay for it.

2 - Viagra is used by men to medically treat a problem with their bodies. Just women use viagra to correct problems caused by their use of antidepressants. Birth control pills, when used for birth control do not correct a problem, but inhibit the body from acting as it was intended to.

3 - Sandra Fluke did demand that all forms of birth control be given to women without any co-pays or increase in insurance rates.

4 - Sandra Fluke knew prior to becoming a student at George Town that Birth Control for use as birth control was not covered under their standard student insurance policy. It was covered when prescribed for treatment for illnesses. She was given the option to purchase another policy at a slightly higher rate that would have covered all forms of birth control, but declined it.

5 - Sandra Fluke was not refused a seat to testify before the Congress as the Democrats claim.
She was told that her testimony that she was scheduled to give was not rellivant to the particular panel that was being seated, which was to discuss the 1st Amendment implications of forcing Religious based institutions to pay for birth control. She could have testified at another time, on panel to which her testimony would have been better suited.

Quote for #3 please....

 

[candycorn]

She wanted the government to FORCE an employer to include it in the coverage plan they chose and they partially pay for, even if it was against their beliefs or stance for whatever reason... Nothing stopped Slutty McMuffin from going and buying her birth control all on her own

So she didn't want the government to pay for it. Point proven. Thanks.

She simply wanted the government to mandate an employer to pay/provide for something they may not agree with.

That's so much better

Well, in part yeah. What if the company believed in natural childbirth without drugs....would you be for the insurance not paying for Cesarean delivery, Demerol, spinal taps, etc...? If you are not for that, please explain why.

By the way, Elementary is great. Hope it stays on the air.

 

[hortysir]

perhaps people would wait a bit longer before having sex.

So I'd be in favor of a bit more restrictions in that sense.

We already have one of the lowest birth and fertility rates. You will never stop people from having sex, no matter what restrictions there are.

Can we cut money from other things first though? Like 2 billion dollar oil company subsidies?


-----------------------------------------------------------

Also you dodged the issue of would you rather pay to care for impoverished children instead?

Only 2 billion???

How about the 83 billion to big banks that would completely erase that evil sequester?

 

[hortysir]

So she didn't want the government to pay for it. Point proven. Thanks.

She simply wanted the government to mandate an employer to pay/provide for something they may not agree with.

That's so much better

Well, in part yeah. What if the company believed in natural childbirth without drugs....would you be for the insurance not paying for Cesarean delivery, Demerol, spinal taps, etc...? If you are not for that, please explain why.

By the way, Elementary is great. Hope it stays on the air.

I would be for a prospective employee not choosing that company to work for if it didn't align with what coverage they would like.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Being forced to pay for education, jails, protections for and more for your children, why doesn't society get more say in how you raise the little crotch-droppings?

 

[theHawk]

I'm sure Sandra Fluke would throw a fit over this picture.

That's pretty much the motto of the Slutters.

 

[candycorn]

She simply wanted the government to mandate an employer to pay/provide for something they may not agree with.

That's so much better

Well, in part yeah. What if the company believed in natural childbirth without drugs....would you be for the insurance not paying for Cesarean delivery, Demerol, spinal taps, etc...? If you are not for that, please explain why.

By the way, Elementary is great. Hope it stays on the air.

I would be for a prospective employee not choosing that company to work for if it didn't align with what coverage they would like.

And if you work there already....I guess you should just quit. Or I guess you can decide just not to have kids, check the owner's religion preferences etc...

Very well.

Still, Ms. Fluke wasn't asking for government money.

 

[hortysir]

Well, in part yeah. What if the company believed in natural childbirth without drugs....would you be for the insurance not paying for Cesarean delivery, Demerol, spinal taps, etc...? If you are not for that, please explain why.

By the way, Elementary is great. Hope it stays on the air.

I would be for a prospective employee not choosing that company to work for if it didn't align with what coverage they would like.

And if you work there already....I guess you should just quit. Or I guess you can decide just not to have kids, check the owner's religion preferences etc...

Very well.

Still, Ms. Fluke wasn't asking for government money.

So you purchase the extra rider.
A company like McD's, that hires mostly teenagers, probably doesn't provide very comprehensive geriatric coverage.

I'm just sating every company shouldn't be required to provide everything for everybody