oaktree
Master of Arts
Can I reserve the right to remain silent? :boing2:
LAws ro restrict male rights
- Thread starter granfire
- Start date
!?
He wasn't arguing religious groups should be compelled to provide services against their morals.
WC_lun
Senior Master
You have no idea what you are talking about. First off, you are not paying for her health insurance. She and other students at Georgetown have private insurance, not paid for by the government. Second, not once in her speech did she mention coverage for herself. Niether did she say anything about sex or contraception. Everything in her speech actually had to do with women's health. Also, this issue has absolutely zero to do with abortion. Maybe you should actually read what she said. Someone linked it in a thread here on the forums or a simple internet search would suffice. It amazes me how many people want to argue about what she said and what it means without actually knowing what she said. It just makes you look ignorant.
cdunn
2nd Black Belt
When I got my vasectomy, as a single man, the only thing they did was emphasize to both myself and my girlfriend, was that this was effectively a 'forever' procedure, and that I should not expect it to be reversible. She was not asked to provide consent. Which is precisely as it should be. Your reproductive system is yours, like all parts of your body. It does not belong to your spouse, and legally, you should not need your spouses permission to do anything you want to it. Being able to get your partner's buy-in is the sign of a good relationship, but neither the law nor medical ethics can forcibly require you to have it; to do otherwise is a gross violation of personal autonomy.
OP
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
- Thread Starter
- #29
A shade theatrical....
However.
A) if he has a relationship with the mother that should not happen
B) if she is that much of a b...female dog, do you need to chain yourself to her?
And until you can carry a baby to term and give birth to it...I am sorry, the male contribution is not equal to the woman's. Should be clear, really.
However, aside from the asinine ideas that had been discussed, some have more merit on the premise of leveling the playing field.
You know, fr women not having to pay through their nose, out of pocket for the medication that eases their life, even though it is primarily designed to prevent pregnancy.
As in the cases Ms Fluke argued to control growths on ovaries. And no, not all brands and formulation can provide the therapeutic effect.
Compared to the little miracle worker for guys that is often passed out with no real need, covered by providers. At over 22 dollars a pop...it's a sizable expense.
And while the intrusive examinations are part of the thorough health check that every man of a certain age ought to undergo, I have my doubts there is that serious concern for a guy who really wants the little pickmeup, not real ED treatment.
Or having the woman bring the spouses consent for tubal ligation...
As I said, parallel to the discussion a group of women discussed the joys of being female, with cramps, debilitatingly so, headaches, and strong bleeding, for some for a week...with the less intrusive solution being (gasp, yes) birth control not covered by their provider.
Seems to me that it really would be to the benefit of the bigger social economic picture to provide people with the means so they don't have to be sidelined every month for several day when nature calls with a vengeance...
What those silly bills do (or would do if some of them where not so ridiculous) is shine a light on how some laws do curtail freedoms of 50% of the population on grounds of 'conservancy' or 'religious freedom'
No, it's not birth control but a hormonal medication (that may have a contraceptive side effect) that is often indicated for such ailments. If only birth control was necessary to alleviate such such issues then abstinence, caps, rings, condoms, outcourse, or withdrawal methods would work. Also, if it the medication were seen as the hormonal medication for multiple indications rather than just contraception, then may some of these more stringent religious organizations wouldn't take issue with it being prescribed for the uses other than contraception. Maybe they already don't have a problem with it, but no one has asked?
cdunn
2nd Black Belt
Given that the default from the insurance company is to include them, as they save the insurance company, and thus the employer, significant wads of money, to the order of $5 per $1 spent on the Pill, you have religious corporations paying extra for the priviledge of denying their female employees, and, potentially the wives of their male employees access to hormonal medications... Well, I'd guess that forcing sex to have unneccesary consequences is of the highest importance to these people.
These are the same people that are pushing bills that say that doctors are allowed to lie to patients about the health of fetuses to prevent abortion, that are pushing bills that make it preferable to let women die before you start an abortion, and to make it legal for employers to ask for proof that you're seeking hormones for non-contraceptive purposes.. and, as a not-at-all-overlooked side effect, to fire you if you ask for them for contraceptive purposes.
Aren't these a couple of local bills in a couple different states. I didn't realize that they are the same people. I certainly hope the voters in those states don't support such bills as you have described.
cdunn
2nd Black Belt
HR 358 of 2011 was passed by the US house at the urging of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and extremist groups such as the Family Research Council. We already have states charging women with murder for miscarriage... And it all ends up the same rathole of religious "morality".
Voters, meanwhile, got the great switcheroo pumped on them - They elected Republicans in order to get jobs and economic recovery, and instead we got a broad assault on everything that's been beneficial to society since the New Deal.
OP
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
- Thread Starter
- #34
I am pretty sure If you were doubled over in pain every single month you would bother to ask your insurance to pay for it.
This is not like an occasional stomach flu. This is an event that occurs every single month, for nearly 30 years. So regular you can set your watch by!
And lets not split hairs. Whether it is hormonal medication with BC as side effect or BC with eliviation of symptoms as side effects. Simulating pregnancy - as most BC do - to the body does stop menstrual problems. It's that simple. A condom does not. (but a condom does lessen the spread of STDs, which cost the economy dearly)
make it simple: cover the damn crap. Like the pill - the blue one - is covered.
And you end the sexist discrimination.
See, the pill is prescribed many times to regulate things. At a time when pregnancy is not desired anyhow (like really young women, older teens)
It always leaves a taste of uncaring despotism when the ailments of women are brushed under the rug. It's not a minor thing!
It is incredibly condescending for a guy to tell a woman what healthcare she can or cannot have. And that is what it boils down to!
I mean, having women count the days until they qualify for hysterectomy, really?! Is that what we want?
I don't think institutions do have the right to force their believes on the people.
The people within those institutions have the right to live their believes.
I think it is wrong for health insurance to pick and chose what they cover.
That includes preexisting conditions. and lets face it, being female is being treated like a preexisting condition.
People like the Minority Whip noted in the OP always want to shift attention from the question that really matters in these cases. When is a fetus considered a human with all of the rights that accompany that distinction?
If we were only talking access to birth control and about what people could do behind closed doors, then we're discussion individual reproductive/sexual rights.
At some point, we need to have a rational discussion about when a fetus becomes a human. I've read papers from various bio-ethicists who put that line anywhere from conception to three years old. My inclination is to put the line much closer to conception.
Practically, this is why we need States Rights on the matter. Smaller groups could actually decide things and a number of solutions could be compared to each other. Eventually, I think it would all balance out.
If we were only talking access to birth control and about what people could do behind closed doors, then we're discussion individual reproductive/sexual rights.
At some point, we need to have a rational discussion about when a fetus becomes a human. I've read papers from various bio-ethicists who put that line anywhere from conception to three years old. My inclination is to put the line much closer to conception.
Practically, this is why we need States Rights on the matter. Smaller groups could actually decide things and a number of solutions could be compared to each other. Eventually, I think it would all balance out.
OP
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
- Thread Starter
- #36
I am not sure where you read the thing - anything - about a fetus.
And maybe we could have the discussion in the future.
If you read that in the 'right to choose', well, there are many choices to be made by women.
And as it is, a great many involve somebody else having a word in it, somebody who is not even related to the woman, namely insurance corporations.
Quite right. And nowhere have I said insurance should not cover it. Maybe you are thinking of other posts when you respond to mine?
Sorry. I thought in your responses you were trying to disagree with me. I'm still not entirely sure. At any rate, it shouldn't suck to be anyone. (1)
1. Except douchebags. There should be something negative about being a douchebag that would discourage membership in that subset.
