Page 2 of 2
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:18 pm
by Spidey
Well I believe birth control is a personal responsibility, having sex for pleasure in not some kind of entitlement.
Even for the poor.
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:23 pm
by callmeslick
Spidey wrote:Well I believe birth control is a personal responsibility, having sex for pleasure in not some kind of entitlement.
Even for the poor.
wow. You're going to delinate between 'sex for pleasure' and, presumably, for procreation? Sex is a core biological urge, not some plaything of your little ideological pie chart, which determines what is an 'entitlement'.
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:40 pm
by Spidey
I don’t have an “ideological pie chart” again you seem to be debating someone you made up in your mind, rather than me.
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:49 pm
by callmeslick
why the distinction, then? Just the Puritan ethic popping up again?
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:52 pm
by Tunnelcat
Slick, don't you realize that Spidey can inhumanly control his sexual urges?
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:16 pm
by callmeslick
apparently.....
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:43 pm
by Spidey
Puritan ethic…lol
Ok, fine….no kind of sex for any purpose is a government entitlement. (I made the distinction because sex for procreation doesn’t need a contraceptive, so I guess lubes will be next on the list)
Puritan ethic…man you just can’t seem to avoid those fantasies, well I guess they help you cope with the world…not having to debate an actual person and all.
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:44 pm
by Spidey
tunnelcat wrote:Slick, don't you realize that Spidey can inhumanly control his sexual urges?
No, I can't...but at the same time, I don't expect others to pay for them either.
.................................
I guess when you boil it down, some people believe that NOTHING is a person’s personal responsibility.
It’s bull★■◆● political maneuvering, that’s all it is…I guess when we can make people guilty about not paying for someone’s haircuts that will become an entitlement as well.
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:30 am
by callmeslick
Spidey wrote:Puritan ethic…lol
Ok, fine….no kind of sex for any purpose is a government entitlement. (I made the distinction because sex for procreation doesn’t need a contraceptive, so I guess lubes will be next on the list)
Puritan ethic…man you just can’t seem to avoid those fantasies, well I guess they help you cope with the world…not having to debate an actual person and all.
no, what I'm getting at is how(unconsciously) the Puritan ethic still influences mainstream American thinking to this day. I had a professor who wrote a book about that subject, and you can still see(40 years later) that the principle still holds.
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:57 am
by Spidey
Yes, but you are making the fatal mistake of confusing principal and ethics in this example.
In other words…my sexual ethics have nothing to do with my opinion on this matter.
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:28 am
by callmeslick
Spidey wrote:Yes, but you are making the fatal mistake of confusing principal and ethics in this example.
In other words…my sexual ethics have nothing to do with my opinion on this matter.
yes, I got that after you clarified. I just wanted to clarify where my observation came from.
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:34 pm
by Tunnelcat
Spidey wrote:tunnelcat wrote:Slick, don't you realize that Spidey can inhumanly control his sexual urges?
No, I can't...but at the same time, I don't expect others to pay for them either.
.................................
I guess when you boil it down, some people believe that NOTHING is a person’s personal responsibility.
It’s **** political maneuvering, that’s all it is…I guess when we can make people guilty about not paying for someone’s haircuts that will become an entitlement as well.
Wouldn't you rather help pay into the system to help
prevent, not abort, an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy instead of supporting that baby on social support for
years? One is a much cheaper option. As for personal responsibility, sometimes people slip up despite their best attempts. Plus, you're not including a pregnancy due to a rape or incest. What then? Someone has to pay, if not the mother, then society.
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:05 pm
by Spidey
That’s a good argument on the surface, but the answer is neither…irresponsible people will get pregnant whether someone else is willing to pay for birth control, or they have to pay for it themselves.
Responsible people…poor or not will use it.
I doubt even the poorest of people could use the excuse “I couldn’t afford a few condoms, so I went ahead and got pregnant, its society’s fault….nah…nah”.
Please…
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:15 pm
by Tunnelcat
Some people are just plain ignorant about what it takes to prevent a pregnancy. We can't prevent stupid. Either we help them learn via sex education in the schools, or by giving easy access to prevention measures, ie., contraception. That, or society gets to pay in the long run for their mistakes. When do we as a nation and as a civilized society abandon our nation's children because they were an afterthought during the heat of the moment and their irresponsibility? You can't make some people take responsibility for their actions. But we can make those irresponsible actions cost us far less, because either way, we're all paying for it eventually. Unless of course, you sanction euthanasia for those who aren't responsible.
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:42 pm
by Spidey
Having something covered by insurance doesn’t mean people will be more educated in the usage or more inclined to use it for that matter.
And if you think birth control is expensive now, just wait till it’s covered by insurance for a few years…then you WILL need insurance to afford it.
I was just at my doctor because my blood sugar is on the rise again, he gave me a script for a drug that costs 15 dollars a dose…I looked at him and said “I can’t afford this” he looked at me and said “well most people taking this drug have insurance” I looked back and said “you just broke the code” he just looked at me…he knew what I meant, and knew it was true.
Re: Supremes Anti Women
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:57 pm
by Tunnelcat
Spidey wrote:Having something covered by insurance doesn’t mean people will be more educated in the usage or more inclined to use it for that matter.
And if you think birth control is expensive now, just wait till it’s covered by insurance for a few years…then you WILL need insurance to afford it.
I was just at my doctor because my blood sugar is on the rise again, he gave me a script for a drug that costs 15 dollars a dose…I looked at him and said “I can’t afford this” he looked at me and said “well most people taking this drug have insurance” I looked back and said “you just broke the code” he just looked at me…he knew what I meant, and knew it was true.
True, but we need to start somewhere, preferably the schools, since parents seem lacking in teaching their kids about the consequences of unprotected sex and the costs to our society, costs we ALL end up paying for. If insurance companies were actively promoting birth control, patients would hear about it in their mailings and emails from the insurance companies, doctors would tell their patients and we wouldn't have all those unplanned babies and their future health issues to pay for. As for increasing drug costs, that's hard to tell. If more women use it, you're probably right. Prices will increase because greed seems to follow demand increases. Even generics have fallen victim. So maybe the Republicans should quite shutting down those affordable Planned Parenthood clinics and save women some dough.
Are you saying you don't have insurance, or just no drug insurance? What are you going to do when the Obamacare penalty kicks in? Me, my insurer just sent me a $38 dollar refund because they didn't spend the requisite 80% of my premiums on my actual health care, a requirement in the ACA law. That was a nice surprise. Kind of offset my premium increase this year. But before you gripe at me, I don't think insurance is the savior our health care crisis either. Too much money is going into the hands of people not actually performing health care, and with an aging population, it's only going to get worse. I personally hate the system we have in this country.