Jump to content


Photo

Sandra Fluke Is An Ignornat Slut


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#121 VaporTrail

VaporTrail

    MVP

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,389 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 March 2012 - 01:42 PM


But I think you are purposely overlooking the inclusion of the morning after pill which some folks believe is aborting a human life.
WSS


I won't overlook this. Plan B is not aborting a human life. Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, but there is no definitive evidence of that. Either way, not an abortion. Once the fertilized egg is implanted, the pill is ineffective.

The difference between the Catholic definition of abortion (any destruction of a fertilized human egg) and the American Medical Association’s definition (any destruction of an embryo following its implantation -- typically about seven days after fertilization) is a major subtext in the debate over whether Plan B is only contraceptive or also possibly abortifacient in some cases.
Barr Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of Plan B, follows the medical association’s definition in describing the drug as strictly contraceptive and suggests that one effect could be to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, a conclusion challenged by several scientific studies.


Source: http://ncronline.org...cause-abortions

I'm going to listen to the AMA's definition of life before I take any ounce of advice from people who apologize for being human every Sunday. Anyways, I think that if insurance companies are going to pay for plan B, then there should be a limit to the number of times they pay for it per year, two or three times seems reasonable. You can't be having people take Plan B as the primary form of birth control, it's just not healthy.
  • 0

#122 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 March 2012 - 01:52 PM

But Steve's right in that some people do believe this. But these are decisions we have to make, and I'm willing to go against the people who do believe this in order to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies. I do not think the morning after pill creates significant moral problems.

Ask these people if they have a problem with in vitro fertilization and they'll almost always say no. That destroys fertilized eggs at the same pre-implantation stage as well.

It's not morally or medically consistent to be against one and for the other.
  • 0

#123 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 March 2012 - 03:56 PM


You are correct there bud. I really need to get on the horn and put my summer season at the bay together.

But I guess I have no problem with insurance not picking up non essential medication.
And I suppose and both cases the man could tell the doctor he really can't get it up there by making it a necessity or a woman claiming to have cramps or whatnot that are alleviated by the pills.
But I think you are purposely overlooking the inclusion of the morning after pill which some folks believe is aborting a human life.
WSS


Heres one for you: is being pregnant a medical condition that involves medical intervention? I mean, obviously the answer is yes, but follow me for a bit.

- You're against people having babies out of wedlock, or carelessly
- You're against - or at least upset about - having to subsidize the care of these children
- You're against a sensible plan to increase the availability of birth control and lower the incidence of both of the things you say you're against.

Does this make sense?

Also, this is a medical issue for women. In some instances, birth control is directly treating a medical condition. In other cases, it's providing women with the most effective form of birth control there is at a more affordable rate. It's preventative care. It gives women - and men - control over their reproductive lives.

What's not to like?
  • 0

#124 c-dawg

c-dawg

    College All American

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPip
  • 215 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 04:18 PM

I couldn't wade through all the pages to see if anyone said this:

Can't you ignorant punks read for yourselves?

Fluke was talking about a friend who needed birth control for a medical condition. There are other reasons to take the stuff other than getting some.

PLUS, Georgetown is a PRIVATE Entity. Nobody is talking about taking your tax dollars to screw.

Sorry, that's not right. They ARE talking about it, and it is a lie. A lie that you ignorant punks keep repeating.

God you people are gullible and lazy. Read for yourselves, I know you didn't in high school but you have to start now, for your own sake if no one else's.
  • 0

#125 Westside Steve

Westside Steve

    Member since Sept 15, 2003

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,262 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norton Ohio

Posted 08 March 2012 - 07:51 PM

http://online.wsj.co...=googlenews_wsj
  • 0

#126 VaporTrail

VaporTrail

    MVP

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,389 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 March 2012 - 09:33 PM

From Steve's article:

"As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost….We also accepted a recommendation from the experts at the Institute of Medicine that when it comes to women, preventive care should include coverage of contraceptive services such as birth control. … we know that the overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services… we decided to follow the judgment of the nation's leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care."


If you don't believe this is the solution, then what is it?
  • 0

#127 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 March 2012 - 11:17 PM

The article is mostly correct, though. There is no "free" contraceptive coverage. Insurance companies will simply disperse the costs of providing contraceptives with hikes in premiums.

As for it saving insurance companies money in the long run, I suspect it only saves them money to provide contraceptive coverage in most cases. In cases where a woman isn't likely to give birth anyway, and is taking it to, say, normalize her cycle, it may not be something that actually saves them money. As the article notes, if it were already a money-saving no brainer, the insurance companies would have done this on their own. Only some of them have.

But this also sort of besides the point. This guy is arguing against what some of the proponents, like Fluke and Dowd, are claiming, not making a case against the actual medical evidence of the benefits.
  • 0

#128 VaporTrail

VaporTrail

    MVP

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,389 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 March 2012 - 11:39 PM

The article is mostly correct, though. There is no "free" contraceptive coverage. Insurance companies will simply disperse the costs of providing contraceptives with hikes in premiums.

As for it saving insurance companies money in the long run, I suspect it only saves them money to provide contraceptive coverage in most cases. In cases where a woman isn't likely to give birth anyway, and is taking it to, say, normalize her cycle, it may not be something that actually saves them money. As the article notes, if it were already a money-saving no brainer, the insurance companies would have done this on their own. Only some of them have.

But this also sort of besides the point. This guy is arguing against what some of the proponents, like Fluke and Dowd, are claiming, not making a case against the actual medical evidence of the benefits.


But what about the economy as the whole? I mean, sure, it might be better for insurance companies, but if we get more poor people on birth control, I would think that it would have the potential to greatly affect their birth rates.
  • 0

#129 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 March 2012 - 11:45 PM

But what about the economy as the whole? I mean, sure, it might be better for insurance companies, but if we get more poor people on birth control, I would think that it would have the potential to greatly affect their birth rates.


Yeah, I agree. This is more about women's health and reducing unwanted pregnancies and saving taxpayer money in the long run. The costs of doing it are small, and the benefits are much greater. On balance, it seems to me to be a no brainer.
  • 0

#130 VaporTrail

VaporTrail

    MVP

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,389 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 March 2012 - 12:05 AM

Yeah, I agree. This is more about women's health and reducing unwanted pregnancies and saving taxpayer money in the long run. The costs of doing it are small, and the benefits are much greater. On balance, it seems to me to be a no brainer.


Did you mean to say "and" as many times as you did?
  • 0

#131 Mr. T

Mr. T

    Member since Mar 2, 2007

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In your mind.

Posted 09 March 2012 - 12:19 PM

Posted Image [/url]


For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”.
I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student.

It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate.
In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s
insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive
services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy.

During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating
the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify.
This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30
years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.


Sandra Fluke’s Appearance Is No Fluke


  • 0

#132 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 March 2012 - 12:40 PM

Did you mean to say "and" as many times as you did?


Was that too excessive?

I suppose we don't have to agree on everything, Vapor.
  • 0

#133 Westside Steve

Westside Steve

    Member since Sept 15, 2003

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,262 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norton Ohio

Posted 09 March 2012 - 03:48 PM

- You're against people having babies out of wedlock, or carelessly

- You're against - or at least upset about - having to subsidize the care of these children

- You're against a sensible plan to increase the availability of birth control and lower the incidence of both of the things you say you're against.


Does this make sense?
Well let's recap okay?
first question: Yes, aren't you?
second question: Yes, aren't you?
Third question yes arent you?
But the third yes doesn't mean you offered a common sense solution.
You can keep saying this and I'll keep answering it the same way.
Contraception is cheap or free and very readily available.
Not evn democrats are so stupid as that they don't know what happens when you have unprotected sex.
acquiring and using those cheap or free contraceptives is the common sense solution.
that involves something else that angers you, responsibility.
if I suggested that we tried to enforce responsibility you will call me a nazi.

Correct me if I'm not remembering correctly, but didn't someone many years ago offer poor women money to undergo hysterectomies? I'm not suggesting we do that it just seems like I remember it maybe not.
WSS


Also, this is a medical issue for women. In some instances, birth control is directly treating a medical condition. In other cases, it's providing women with the most effective form of birth control there is at a more affordable rate. It's preventative care. It gives women - and men - control over their reproductive lives.

What's not to like?


  • 0

#134 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 March 2012 - 05:13 PM

This conversation is going in circles.
  • 0

#135 Westside Steve

Westside Steve

    Member since Sept 15, 2003

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,262 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norton Ohio

Posted 09 March 2012 - 06:06 PM

This conversation is going in circles.


That's correct.
You want me to accept a flawed premise.
But I answered your questions.
WSS

  • 0

#136 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 March 2012 - 06:32 PM

It's not flawed at all. You're just saying "Use the birth control you have available to you now." Which is fine, but it means you're for not changing anything.

The evidence is that if you make birth control more affordable, you'll have more people using it. The medical case for widespread use of birth control is also there. And those are arguments for changing things. The question is: do you want to change things in that way.
  • 0

#137 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 March 2012 - 06:48 PM

This is the movie version of me and you arguing, Steve. I keep trying to get you to put those glasses on.


  • 0

#138 calfoxwc

calfoxwc

    Member since Sept 14, 2003

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,557 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 08:21 PM

1. I don't know if Georgtown students pay a premium for their insurance, or not.

2. Fluke most certainly WAS a hand picked PLANT by the Dems. They tried, at the last "minute",to
have the Reps cancel the appearance of their expert, to have Fluke instead. The Reps refused, rightly so.

3. As a plant, she fit the bill - she was an advocate for abortion and womens' rights. And she deliberately attended
Georgetown because they didn't have the contraceptive coverage.

4. "premiums" will go up a bit." Heck? Really? "Small price"

What price is it, to have the Obamao mafia order religious groups to betray their conscience, and discredit themselves as hypocrites?

5. The $3000 is bogus. They want to have their choice of the most expensive contraceptives, whenever they want it, and they want it paid for.

As in, if they can't afford condoms, how in the hell are they supposed to afford a "higher" premium?

6. She is an activist, and she picked this battle. And it plays into the Obamao admin's plans to take control over healthcare. And religious schools,
if not putting them out of business.

7. This whole issue is a smokesceen to divert attention from Obamao's disasterous decisions on all fronts. And he was losing the support of a lot of
women in their polls. So, they concoct a contraversy, and immediately use it to paint "Republicans and conservatives against women and contraceptives".

Which, is pretty stupid, since all sorts of women can get all the contraceptives they want. Now, having their tubes tied, and it's free? No. It's time for the "entitlement
leeches" to knock it off.

8. Really? Students pay 40 some THOUSAND A YEAR to attend Georgtown, and another maybe 20,000 a year for room and board....
and they can't add 800 dollars to their student loans a year?

9. The issue is politics. And for Fluke, she makes a famous name for herself, and she is a shoe-in for a job with the Obamao gov somewhere, after she graduates.

10. She was NOT talking about a friend who had medical reasons for contreptives. She was talking about ALL women getting free EXPENSIVE contraceptives,
in exercizing their own choices, and not wanting to be financially responsible for those decisions. I mean, follow the line of reasoning. "I went to the store,
and I wanted the gold lined diapers for my kid, but I left because I couldn't buy them. I am without the ability to pay for diapers."

A lot like that. But, if it helps hide Obamao some more, and get him re-elected? Sure, libs will come up with stupidass (Heckish) emotionalism to support it.

And last, but most importantly - like Lerner of the SEIU wants, and Obamao's friends want, and Obamao wants, and his admin wants... is for the United States to
be a country where they take power one way or another, don't ever have to give it up. So, the 1st Amendment only applies for libs/communists. So, the 2nd Amendment
has to go. So, the military has to be undermined carefully over time. So, Obamao needs his OWN "CIVILIAN SECURITY FORCE, AS WELL FUNDED, AND ARMED,
AS OUR MIITARY".

Obamao envisions himself as the ultimate hero to all the "black liberation theology" advocates out there. Because that's who he is.
Which, we would have found out, if so much of the media hadn't fallen in love with the "first black president" idea. And, if Obamao's favorite
marxist radical professor hadn't hidden the tape of Obamao.

This is the most corrupt, anti-America, anti-Bible president in our history. Not good. We are in big, big huge trouble.
  • 0

#139 MLD Woody

MLD Woody

    Legends Club

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,719 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Strongsville,OH/ Ann Arbor, MI

Posted 09 March 2012 - 10:56 PM

This is the movie version of me and you arguing, Steve. I keep trying to get you to put those glasses on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-MVMbm6c0k


I was thinking more of the cripple fight from South Park lol

but who is Timmy and who's Jimmy?
  • 0

#140 VaporTrail

VaporTrail

    MVP

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,389 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 March 2012 - 09:24 AM

It's time to kick ass and chew bubble gum. And I'm all out of bubble gum.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users