Org Mobile Site
Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate. 
I don't know how anyone kept a straight face, but it sounds like a Hustler Magazine story. I suggest you young men head over to GeorgeTown with a pocketfull of birth control pills and help these ladies out.
Free birth control....nay sez I.
I don't know how anyone kept a straight face, but it sounds like a Hustler Magazine story. I suggest you young men head over to GeorgeTown with a pocketfull of birth control pills and help these ladies out. Free birth control....nay sez I.
So you would rather have pregnant teenagers?
Sounds like the male law school students need Viagra to keep it up.
I know I would. 
No, but seriously, whatever it takes to stop the high schoolers from going on and on to each other on the metro about how so-and-so got so-and-so 1 and so-and-so 2 and so-and-so 3 pregnant recently, but so-and-so 3 isn't as mad because she's further along and I wonder what it would be like to get knocked up, and that US History class is so boring, or World History what ever I can't believe I have to study for these stupid regents.
...
*ahem*
No, but seriously, whatever it takes to stop the high schoolers from going on and on to each other on the metro about how so-and-so got so-and-so 1 and so-and-so 2 and so-and-so 3 pregnant recently, but so-and-so 3 isn't as mad because she's further along and I wonder what it would be like to get knocked up, and that US History class is so boring, or World History what ever I can't believe I have to study for these stupid regents.
...
*ahem*
Oh that is such crap Acin you know better.
My ex comes from a wealthy family from Orange County and she has birth control. She got her birth control for free from planned parenthood. Hell she got free doctors appointments with is suppose whatever passes for a gynecologist a few times I went in with her.
You know damn well condoms and Birth control are easy as hell to get. Abortions are even frighteningly cheap.
Morning After Pill is fifty a pop. And you know what there is no real reason you should ever use that. I know couples who used condoms and birth control. Before my ex got birth control I used the pull out method (stupid I know, blah blah blah) and only ought it once and I wasn't even sure if I needed to; something just felt wrong about it that time.
My ex comes from a wealthy family from Orange County and she has birth control. She got her birth control for free from planned parenthood. Hell she got free doctors appointments with is suppose whatever passes for a gynecologist a few times I went in with her.
You know damn well condoms and Birth control are easy as hell to get. Abortions are even frighteningly cheap.
Morning After Pill is fifty a pop. And you know what there is no real reason you should ever use that. I know couples who used condoms and birth control. Before my ex got birth control I used the pull out method (stupid I know, blah blah blah) and only ought it once and I wasn't even sure if I needed to; something just felt wrong about it that time.
Originally Posted by Centurion1:
Oh that is such crap Acin you know better.
My ex comes from a wealthy family from Orange County and she has birth control. She got her birth control for free from planned parenthood. Hell she got free doctors appointments with is suppose whatever passes for a gynecologist a few times I went in with her.
You know damn well condoms and Birth control are easy as hell to get. Abortions are even frighteningly cheap.
Morning After Pill is fifty a pop. And you know what there is no real reason you should ever use that. I know couples who used condoms and birth control. Before my ex got birth control I used the pull out method (stupid I know, blah blah blah) and only ought it once and I wasn't even sure if I needed to; something just felt wrong about it that time.
Oh that is such crap Acin you know better.
My ex comes from a wealthy family from Orange County and she has birth control. She got her birth control for free from planned parenthood. Hell she got free doctors appointments with is suppose whatever passes for a gynecologist a few times I went in with her.
You know damn well condoms and Birth control are easy as hell to get. Abortions are even frighteningly cheap.
Morning After Pill is fifty a pop. And you know what there is no real reason you should ever use that. I know couples who used condoms and birth control. Before my ex got birth control I used the pull out method (stupid I know, blah blah blah) and only ought it once and I wasn't even sure if I needed to; something just felt wrong about it that time.
No matter how cheap you make birth control, people are cheaper.
I went clam digging with one of my uncles a few years back. I spent two hours out in the water with him digging up clams. Got over a dozen. I was very excited to cook them and eat them. My uncle told me that because we didn't catch enough to feed everyone he would keep the clams in the freezer until we had enough. My family left before we could find time to go get some more clams and he knew that would happen. He stole a dozen clams from a 14 year old so he didn't have to pay for them at the market.
Teenagers are stupid. I'm stupid and I'm 19. But they are even more stupid than I am. They will have sex, you can't stop them and if for whatever reason they feel that they can't protect themselves, then we need to make sure the nation does not turn out like Montmorency's high school, where people like Mont are pregnating everyone.
The flaw in your argument, which is factually sound, is that you assume the actors in this are rational.
I don't see a problem with this 
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
No matter how cheap you make birth control, people are cheaper.
I went clam digging with one of my uncles a few years back. I spent two hours out in the water with him digging up clams. Got over a dozen. I was very excited to cook them and eat them. My uncle told me that because we didn't catch enough to feed everyone he would keep the clams in the freezer until we had enough. My family left before we could find time to go get some more clams and he knew that would happen. He stole a dozen clams from a 14 year old so he didn't have to pay for them at the market.
Teenagers are stupid. I'm stupid and I'm 19. But they are even more stupid than I am. They will have sex, you can't stop them and if for whatever reason they feel that they can't protect themselves, then we need to make sure the nation does not turn out like Montmorency's high school, where people like Mont are pregnating everyone.
The flaw in your argument, which is factually sound, is that you assume the actors in this are rational.
I think you are mostly right (mostly), but this doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand. The woman talked about in the article claims that birth control costs thousands of dollars a year and so it needs to be covered by insurance. This doesn't have anything to do with horny highschoolers and whether or not they should have easy access to contraception.No matter how cheap you make birth control, people are cheaper.
I went clam digging with one of my uncles a few years back. I spent two hours out in the water with him digging up clams. Got over a dozen. I was very excited to cook them and eat them. My uncle told me that because we didn't catch enough to feed everyone he would keep the clams in the freezer until we had enough. My family left before we could find time to go get some more clams and he knew that would happen. He stole a dozen clams from a 14 year old so he didn't have to pay for them at the market.
Teenagers are stupid. I'm stupid and I'm 19. But they are even more stupid than I am. They will have sex, you can't stop them and if for whatever reason they feel that they can't protect themselves, then we need to make sure the nation does not turn out like Montmorency's high school, where people like Mont are pregnating everyone.
The flaw in your argument, which is factually sound, is that you assume the actors in this are rational.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
So you would rather have pregnant teenagers?
Of course not. I just expect for them to pay for their own recreation.So you would rather have pregnant teenagers?
Originally Posted by :
Montmorency's high school, where people like Mont are pregnating everyone.
My friend, public transportation is not a service provided solely to myself and my acquaintances.Montmorency's high school, where people like Mont are pregnating everyone.
*starts checking airline prices - destination Georgetown *
Head this on the radio yesterday.
Really people?
Really people?
Where were these girls when I used to cruise Georgetown? 
As long as viagra is covered by insurance I refuse to hear why the pill shouldn't be.
The pill has a litany of uses other than just contraception. Many woman take it to regulate periods or deal with ovarian cysts, to name a few off the top of my head. Now how we handle the particulars of coverage has merit, but to demonize these women as harlots is a terrible strawman and reeks of mysoginy.
This has more to do with women having sex than it ever did with the validity and cost effective measures of the pill. It's a puritanical, knee jerk reaction.
The pill has a litany of uses other than just contraception. Many woman take it to regulate periods or deal with ovarian cysts, to name a few off the top of my head. Now how we handle the particulars of coverage has merit, but to demonize these women as harlots is a terrible strawman and reeks of mysoginy.
This has more to do with women having sex than it ever did with the validity and cost effective measures of the pill. It's a puritanical, knee jerk reaction.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
As long as viagra is covered by insurance I refuse to hear why the pill shouldn't be.
The pill has a litany of uses other than just contraception. Many woman take it to regulate periods or deal with ovarian cysts, to name a few off the top of my head. Now how we handle the particulars of coverage has merit, but to demonize these women as harlots is a terrible strawman and reeks of mysoginy.
This has more to do with women having sex than it ever did with the validity and cost effective measures of the pill. It's a puritanical, knee jerk reaction.
I didn't know that Viagra was covered by insurance. If I was running an insurance company I wouldn't cover it. But your argument is sadly moot. The insurance companies are not being forced by the government to cover viagra there is no mandate requiring it. They are doing it of their own volition. The issue here is that organizations are being forced to provide birth control. It is not whether it is more valid than other things it is simply because they are being forced too. PLus many insurance companies will cover birth control if it is for medical reasons so also moot.As long as viagra is covered by insurance I refuse to hear why the pill shouldn't be.
The pill has a litany of uses other than just contraception. Many woman take it to regulate periods or deal with ovarian cysts, to name a few off the top of my head. Now how we handle the particulars of coverage has merit, but to demonize these women as harlots is a terrible strawman and reeks of mysoginy.
This has more to do with women having sex than it ever did with the validity and cost effective measures of the pill. It's a puritanical, knee jerk reaction.
Originally Posted by Tuuvi:
I think you are mostly right (mostly), but this doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand. The woman talked about in the article claims that birth control costs thousands of dollars a year and so it needs to be covered by insurance. This doesn't have anything to do with horny highschoolers and whether or not they should have easy access to contraception.
Some teenagers don't use contraception as often as they should because it is "too expensive". Now, let's be clear. The generic pill is in fact very cheap. Like $10 a month. However, some women might have medical reasons that prevent them from using the generic formula/pill and thus need to rely on more expensive alternatives like those vaginal rings which I think can cost over $60-$80 a month.I think you are mostly right (mostly), but this doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand. The woman talked about in the article claims that birth control costs thousands of dollars a year and so it needs to be covered by insurance. This doesn't have anything to do with horny highschoolers and whether or not they should have easy access to contraception.
That being said, it still shouldn't come out to thousands of dollars if I do my math correctly.
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito:
Of course not. I just expect for them to pay for their own recreation.
You expect young people to pay for their own stuff? Let them screw all day on free birth control and draw the line somewhere else that doesn't risk unwanted children being born. Of course not. I just expect for them to pay for their own recreation.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
My friend, public transportation is not a service provided solely to myself and my acquaintances.
My friend, public transportation is not a service provided solely to myself and my acquaintances.
Originally Posted by Centurion1:
I didn't know that Viagra was covered by insurance. If I was running an insurance company I wouldn't cover it. But your argument is sadly moot. The insurance companies are not being forced by the government to cover viagra there is no mandate requiring it. They are doing it of their own volition. The issue here is that organizations are being forced to provide birth control. It is not whether it is more valid than other things it is simply because they are being forced too. PLus many insurance companies will cover birth control if it is for medical reasons so also moot.
First off, This wouldn't be an issue if we just did what the UK does and in a few years that will happen. I didn't know that Viagra was covered by insurance. If I was running an insurance company I wouldn't cover it. But your argument is sadly moot. The insurance companies are not being forced by the government to cover viagra there is no mandate requiring it. They are doing it of their own volition. The issue here is that organizations are being forced to provide birth control. It is not whether it is more valid than other things it is simply because they are being forced too. PLus many insurance companies will cover birth control if it is for medical reasons so also moot.
The issue has ceased to be about birth control. If we were talking about the particulars I would say simply making it afforadable to women would be the best option as many who need it for medical reasons don't have insurance to begin with. The medical issues that the pill helps aliveate are numerous and very valid.
The issue now is that when this was discussed it was 6 old men who disscussed it and talk radio is already beating the slut drum half to death. If you want to talk partricualrs we can talk particulars but right now this is about the fact people are up in arms about women having sex
Just shove the pill down there gobs at breakfast an be done with it.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
That being said, it still shouldn't come out to thousands of dollars if I do my math correctly.
With the pill, no it shouldn't. But if these ladies are having relations 2-3 times a day, chances are condoms are the better choice. Warding off pregnancy is one thing, but preventing a major STD epidemic is the main goal here.That being said, it still shouldn't come out to thousands of dollars if I do my math correctly.
Originally Posted by drone:
With the pill, no it shouldn't. But if these ladies are having relations 2-3 times a day, chances are condoms are the better choice. Warding off pregnancy is one thing, but preventing a major STD epidemic is the main goal here.
If the women were paying for condoms, I could see the price go up to the thousands because some places charge a lot for condoms if you dont know where to get them cheap. However, the men really should be taking on that financial burden.With the pill, no it shouldn't. But if these ladies are having relations 2-3 times a day, chances are condoms are the better choice. Warding off pregnancy is one thing, but preventing a major STD epidemic is the main goal here.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
This has more to do with women having sex than it ever did with the validity and cost effective measures of the pill. It's a puritanical, knee jerk reaction.
Yeah well that's the kind I specialise in.This has more to do with women having sex than it ever did with the validity and cost effective measures of the pill. It's a puritanical, knee jerk reaction.
If they do want the pill covered by insurance it should only ever be on the health grounds you mentioned.
Your points are valid but this thread is specifically about those who argue they should get the pill for free so they can have recreational sex.
I think that that particular argument will at least be more difficult to defend.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Yeah well that's the kind I specialise in.
If they do want the pill covered by insurance it should only ever be on the health grounds you mentioned.
Your points are valid but this thread is specifically about those who argue they should get the pill for free so they can have recreational sex.
I think that that particular argument will at least be more difficult to defend.
The way the woman framed her arguement was lamentable but on the other side of the coin people lobby for useless crap all the time....this really is no different.Yeah well that's the kind I specialise in.
If they do want the pill covered by insurance it should only ever be on the health grounds you mentioned.
Your points are valid but this thread is specifically about those who argue they should get the pill for free so they can have recreational sex.
I think that that particular argument will at least be more difficult to defend.
I would also point out the man can cut and run anytime on an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy a woman, one way or another has to deal with the situation and the consequnces. That is also a pertinent point
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
I think that that particular argument will at least be more difficult to defend.
Not really. This is reality. Human's loooooove to have sex. Teenage brains are not fully developed yet, they are not fully in control. Making a moral decision of preventing birth control to horny teenagers presents us a net harm by causing an increase in abortions.I think that that particular argument will at least be more difficult to defend.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Not really. This is reality. Human's loooooove to have sex. Teenage brains are not fully developed yet, they are not fully in control. Making a moral decision of preventing birth control to horny teenagers presents us a net harm by causing an increase in abortions.
You don't need to frame the arguement like this for birth control to considerd valid enough to at least partially cover. You don't have to talk about sex at allNot really. This is reality. Human's loooooove to have sex. Teenage brains are not fully developed yet, they are not fully in control. Making a moral decision of preventing birth control to horny teenagers presents us a net harm by causing an increase in abortions.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
You don't need to frame the arguement like this for birth control to considerd valid enough to at least partially cover. You don't have to talk about sex at all
Indeed you could make it on economic grounds less babies means women have more ability to work outside the home.You don't need to frame the arguement like this for birth control to considerd valid enough to at least partially cover. You don't have to talk about sex at all
Societies where more women earn a wage are richer by default.
Also something that needs to be mentioned
You take the pill on a schedule. There is no "I'm going to screw the entire football team in hopes we win the big game, so I had better pop 50"
Once again an example of the male disconnect
UGh....I sounded like Gloria Steiniem
I'm going to go take a shower
You take the pill on a schedule. There is no "I'm going to screw the entire football team in hopes we win the big game, so I had better pop 50"
Once again an example of the male disconnect
UGh....I sounded like Gloria Steiniem
I'm going to go take a shower
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
You don't need to frame the arguement like this for birth control to considerd valid enough to at least partially cover. You don't have to talk about sex at all
That's true. I will silence myself for now then.You don't need to frame the arguement like this for birth control to considerd valid enough to at least partially cover. You don't have to talk about sex at all
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Also something that needs to be mentioned
You take the pill on a schedule. There is no "I'm going to screw the entire football team in hopes we win the big game, so I had better pop 50"
Once again an example of the male disconnect
UGh....I sounded like Gloria Steiniem
I'm going to go take a shower
I think everyone is aware of this I am not sure why it is relevant in the slightest.Also something that needs to be mentioned
You take the pill on a schedule. There is no "I'm going to screw the entire football team in hopes we win the big game, so I had better pop 50"
Once again an example of the male disconnect
UGh....I sounded like Gloria Steiniem
I'm going to go take a shower
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
That's true. I will silence myself for now then.
I'm not saying you have to silence yourselfThat's true. I will silence myself for now then.
Y U Mad Tho?
Originally Posted by Centurion1:
I think everyone is aware of this I am not sure why it is relevant in the slightest.
Becuase the girl is being framed as some sort of sluf b/c her birth control costs 3,000$I think everyone is aware of this I am not sure why it is relevant in the slightest.
The assumption being if she needs that much she must be a harlot, which is patently false
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO