I may reconsider my position on this.

PistolPackingMomma · Mar 3, 2012

Whether or not birth control should be used is an entirely different topic (and never a productive one) but regardless of my personal moral views on contraception, I fully agree that WE should not be paying for someone else's contraceptives. What will we be paying for next, their monthly salon up-keep? :banghead:

And, as to using birth control as a way to control hormones...well, I'm sorry, but it actually doesn't. (I mean that as nicely as possible) It will "stop" certain "problems", but it won't cure them. Problems are generally indicative of something bigger going on.
Frequently birth control will interrupt the natural flow of hormones, causing infertility (sometimes permanently), and in the case if IUD's, passing through tissue to other parts of the body, but it never cures what is causing the issue. Why not go directly to the source and fix it, instead of just putting a band aid on it?

I'm not telling anyone to NOT use birth control; simply that if you are going to; be aware of the risks. There are more than just what is printed on the box.

I learned just this past week that almost every perfume on the market has chemicals that cause hormonal imbalances, and that almost every deodorant contains aluminum; another metal being absorbed into your body that you cannot dispose of. Make up contains lead, juice contains arsenic, fabric softener has toxins easily absorbed by the skin...

Is it really any wonder that cancer, infertility and brain diseases like Alzheimers are on the rise?

Citizen said:
I'm pretty convinced Rush is part of the problem. He just feeds the divisiveness in this country.

Agreed. I used to be a "Rush Baby" until about six months ago, when I finally got sick of it. When I did listen, it was with a critical ear, but now I don't even care to give him that.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 3, 2012

PistolPackingMomma said:
Whether or not birth control should be used is an entirely different topic (and never a productive one) but regardless of my personal moral views on contraception, I fully agree that WE should not be paying for someone else's contraceptives. What will we be paying for next, their monthly salon up-keep? :banghead:

And, as to using birth control as a way to control hormones...well, I'm sorry, but it actually doesn't. (I mean that as nicely as possible) It will "stop" certain "problems", but it won't cure them. Problems are generally indicative of something bigger going on.
Frequently birth control will interrupt the natural flow of hormones, causing infertility (sometimes permanently), and in the case if IUD's, passing through tissue to other parts of the body, but it never cures what is causing the issue. Why not go directly to the source and fix it, instead of just putting a band aid on it?

I'm not telling anyone to NOT use birth control; simply that if you are going to; be aware of the risks. There are more than just what is printed on the box.

I learned just this past week that almost every perfume on the market has chemicals that cause hormonal imbalances, and that almost every deodorant contains aluminum; another metal being absorbed into your body that you cannot dispose of. Make up contains lead, juice contains arsenic, fabric softener has toxins easily absorbed by the skin...

Is it really any wonder that cancer, infertility and brain diseases like Alzheimers are on the rise?

There are a number of reasons that individuals take 'the pill', and they are not all for contraceptive purposes. I have taken the pill due to estrogen dominance where I needed pprogestin to balance out my hormonal equation; trust me, I needed it!

There can be deeper issues to hormone imbalance but it takes time to identify what the issue is. About four months ago I stopped taking estrogen and progesterone because it was discovered that I actually had a thyroid issue. I suppose my point is that contraception isn't always used for contraception only, there are other reasons, such as: regulating cycle, breast pain (I had), and it has been argued to help with reducing the risk of osteroperosis.

The fact that contraception is even brought up by the Right speaks to their lack of legitimate arguements. I am of the opinion that this type of discussion on the Right is going to be damaging to their chances come November. Pistol, you may not agree that insurance ought to cover contraception, heck, PAP, or any other service that is directed towards females, I thnk you would be hard-pressed to offer-up some numbers where the majority of females agree with you on this issue of insurance coverage. If the majority of females believe there ought to be such coverage, then the Right are jumping in the ring for a fight they will lose; they have lost it before.

Aknazer · Mar 3, 2012

PistolPackingMomma said:
Whether or not birth control should be used is an entirely different topic (and never a productive one) but regardless of my personal moral views on contraception, I fully agree that WE should not be paying for someone else's contraceptives. What will we be paying for next, their monthly salon up-keep? :banghead:

Exactly. And even if we were paying for it there's plenty of cheaper options out there. It's like a kid telling their parent that they (the parents) should pay for their car because the car is going to cost them $50k and that the kid can't afford it so the parent must pay for it. If you can't afford it you either go without or you look for a cheaper option.

Also note that I'm fully against the health care law and not just the contraceptive bit. So this isn't just me being against mandatory contraceptive payments. But if a religious organization provides your health care then they are setting up the terms and shouldn't be forced to provide something they don't want to provide as healthcare isn't a right; and if you don't like it then you can go somewhere else or pay for it yourself (and as pointed out you don't HAVE to spend $3k in contraceptive).

Oh and to the person (Twanos?) that decided to include things like doctor's visits in the cost, you're distorting the numbers to make them work. The cost for various checks is NOT a part of the cost for contraceptives unless it is specifically required for insertion (like an IUD).

rscottie · Mar 3, 2012

This whole thing is just an attempt to further force taxpayers to pay for other people's obligations instead of making them work for it.

Going to college is not a right and asking me to pay for things someone may need while going to college is wrong.

Considering that she is paying $45,000 a semester, I mean, the uber-liberal backers are paying $45,000 a semester for her college, perhaps she should ask them for the money.

This has absolutely nothing to do with women's rights or whatever. It is another money grab to pay for liberal ideals.

Tawnos · Mar 3, 2012

PistolPackingMomma said:
I learned just this past week that almost every perfume on the market has chemicals that cause hormonal imbalances, and that almost every deodorant contains aluminum; another metal being absorbed into your body that you cannot dispose of. Make up contains lead, juice contains arsenic, fabric softener has toxins easily absorbed by the skin...

Is it really any wonder that cancer, infertility and brain diseases like Alzheimers are on the rise?

Learned from where?

Also, all three of those things are associated with living longer. Are you saying we shouldn't live as long?

ManInBlack · Mar 3, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
Pistol, you may not agree that insurance ought to cover contraception, heck, PAP, or any other service that is directed towards females, I thnk you would be hard-pressed to offer-up some numbers where the majority of females agree with you on this issue of insurance coverage. If the majority of females believe there ought to be such coverage, then the Right are jumping in the ring for a fight they will lose; they have lost it before.

With all respect, the majority of females can go p$ss off. The reason we have a constitution is to restrain the government from taking the life, liberty or property of individual citizens and giving it specially-favored groups. The only moral question here is whether it is morally correct for you to steal property from those who have produced or earned it. Based on your previous posts, you believe the answer to be yes. The constitution disagrees.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 3, 2012

ManInBlack said:
With all respect, the majority of females can go p$ss off. The reason we have a constitution is to restrain the government from taking the life, liberty or property of individual citizens and giving it specially-favored groups. The only moral question here is whether it is morally correct for you to steal property from those who have produced or earned it. Based on your previous posts, you believe the answer to be yes. The constitution disagrees.

Offering birth control to female through insurance robs no person of Liberty.

The Constitution - being the living breathing document that it is - does affirm the Right to equal protection in ALL things.

I stated this previously: I hope that Republicans, and Conservastives push issues like contraception, and the inaccurate association they make between contraception and abortion.

ManInBlack · Mar 3, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
Offering birth control to female through insurance robs no person of Liberty.

The Constitution - being the living breathing document that it is - does affirm the Right to equal protection in ALL things.

I stated this previously: I hope that Republicans, and Conservastives push issues like contraception, and the inaccurate association they make between contraception and abortion.

It most certainly robs of their property those who oppose contraception and are part of the same insurance pool. Something you leftists will never understand: someone ALWAYS has to pay for something; there is nothing free in life!

The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to all people. Not "equal protection in all things." Do you even read what you write before you hit "Submit Reply?" Equal protection is not forcing one group of individuals to pay for something that you think members of another group overwhelmingly want.

I agree that contraception is not the same as abortion, and I am not even necessarily opposed to contraception. What I am opposed to is having my property stolen!

Citizen · Mar 3, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
SNIP Offering birth control to female through insurance robs no person of Liberty.

The hell it doesn't.

It robs me, my friends, my family, you and yours of economic liberty. We pay increased premiums, that money now unavailable to ourselves for spending on other things or savings.

Insurance is no longer insurance. Once upon a time, insurance was offered and accepted as a method to prevent financial disaster in the event of economic disaster--loss of home to fire or flood, death of wage earner, physical disability preventing work.

Over time socialism invaded insurance. Now insurance is used to pay for predictable and routine: dental check ups, physical check ups, a new friggin' windshield because of a pebble crack. Insurance is no longer insurance. It is just another avenue for socialism. Perhaps inroad would be a better term.

And socialism was never about society. It is nothing more than a mechanism to justify control by those elites inclined towards control. And, to the benefit of rent-seeking persons and businesses. Kaiser Permanente sent out a circular promoting their co-conspiratorial conduct in the creation of Obamacare. You can bet the farm that if it didn't suit their profit margin, they would have fought it tooth-and-nail.

For example, I can hardly afford to support my parents in their old age. Fifteen percent of my income has been seized from me under the government lies called Social Security, etc. ever since I joined the workforce. Did I have that money, I could have invested it, seeing a much better return, and losing nothing to the fraud and waste of government management.

Economic liberty. There is no legitimate reason to make a distinction between economic liberty and civil liberty. The only people who benefit from such an arbitrary and illegitimate distinction are govern-ers and whoever they're paying off. Recall the slogan from the Revolution: "No taxation without representation!" It spoke to economic liberty. Its another way of saying, "It's our money! We deserve to spend it the way we choose. Not on your Stamp Acts and tea taxes."

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 3, 2012

ManInBlack said:
(1)It most certainly robs of their property those who oppose contraception and are part of the same insurance pool. Something you leftists will never understand: someone ALWAYS has to pay for something; there is nothing free in life!

(2)The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to all people. Not "equal protection in all things." Do you even read what you write before you hit "Submit Reply?" Equal protection is not forcing one group of individuals to pay for something that you think members of another group overwhelmingly want.

I agree that contraception is not the same as abortion, and I am not even necessarily opposed to contraception. What I am opposed to is having my property stolen!

(1) By that reasoning than all insurance robs individuals of their property. I suppose we ought to just get rid of medical insurance then--Government mandated insurance, maybe? Interesting that you point out that individuals have to pay for something, the female is paying for insurance, why shouldn't it cover contracetption?

(2) Wrong, the Constitution Affirms, not Guarantees. But if you would like to go that route, then yes, the Constitution Guarantees equal protection; therebye, the Government is in the best position to mandate what is covered under the Amendments of the Constitution. Thanks for the help.

(3) You are "not necessarily" opposed to contraception; is that kind of like being opposed but not, all at the same time?

You keep talking about Property, what Property are you referring to--your Liberty, your money, neither are Property.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 3, 2012

Citizen said:
The hell it doesn't.

It robs me, my friends, my family, you and yours of economic liberty. We pay increased premiums, that money now unavailable to ourselves for spending on other things or savings.

Insurance is no longer insurance. Once upon a time, insurance was offered and accepted as a method to prevent financial disaster in the event of economic disaster--loss of home to fire or flood, death of wage earner, physical disability preventing work.

Over time socialism invaded insurance. Now insurance is used to pay for predictable and routine: dental check ups, physical check ups, a new friggin' windshield because of a pebble crack. Insurance is no longer insurance. It is just another avenue for socialism. Perhaps inroad would be a better term.

And socialism was never about society. It is nothing more than a mechanism to justify control by those elites inclined towards control. And, to the benefit of rent-seeking persons and businesses. Kaiser Permanente sent out a circular promoting their co-conspiratorial conduct in the creation of Obamacare. You can bet the farm that if it didn't suit their profit margin, they would have fought it tooth-and-nail.

For example, I can hardly afford to support my parents in their old age. Fifteen percent of my income has been seized from me under the government lies called Social Security, etc. ever since I joined the workforce. Did I have that money, I could have invested it, seeing a much better return, and losing nothing to the fraud and waste of government management.

Economic liberty. There is no legitimate reason to make a distinction between economic liberty and civil liberty. The only people who benefit from such an arbitrary and illegitimate distinction are govern-ers and whoever they're paying off. Recall the slogan from the Revolution: "No taxation without representation!" It spoke to economic liberty. Its another way of saying, "It's our money! We deserve to spend it the way we choose. Not on your Stamp Acts and tea taxes."

Liberty run-amok; some of you have a strong sense of entitlement, especially with what you consider an issue of Liberty. Let's get real here, there is nothing robbed from you, you just don't want some female getting contraception.

Now for the broken record: Conservatives, keep running on this platform, please!

With regard to the original Tea Party slogan, you might not be aware of this but, you have representation. Now pay your taxes!

ManInBlack · Mar 3, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
(1) By that reasoning than all insurance robs individuals of their property. I suppose we ought to just get rid of medical insurance then--Government mandated insurance, maybe? Interesting that you point out that individuals have to pay for something, the female is paying for insurance, why shouldn't it cover contracetption?

In the free market, individuals, organizations, and businesses, can choose insurance companies that satisfy THEIR criteria: cost, reputation, ethics/morals, risk pool, etc. With your beloved government mandate, a certain group decides for everyone what the criteria should be, and requires everyone to pay for it, or be assaulted and kidnapped (arrested and jailed). This is theft, writ large.

I don't care if a private insurance company chooses to offer contraception. What I object to is supposedly-free citizens being forced into a government program that goes against their basic beliefs.

(2) Wrong, the Constitution Affirms, not Guarantees.

OK, if you say so.

But if you would like to go that route, then yes, the Constitution Guarantees equal protection; therebye, the Government is in the best position to mandate what is covered under the Amendments of the Constitution. Thanks for the help.

Are you insane? The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation, not the executive branch. And FYI, the equal protection clause is not one of the amendments; it is part of the original document. Maybe you should try reading the constitution rather than speaking from your usual position of total ignorance.

(3) You are "not necessarily" opposed to contraception; is that kind of like being opposed but not, all at the same time?

It means that in a free society, I am not necessarily opposed to people screwing like rabbits in a wet spring, so long as they assume all consequences and costs of their decisions. In no circumstance whatsoever should I be forced to pay for another citizen's choices.

You keep talking about Property, what Property are you referring to--your Liberty, your money, neither are Property.

My wealth is my property. That's right, the very same wealth that you and your cohorts would love to get your greedy, filthy little hands on.

ManInBlack · Mar 3, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
Liberty run-amok; some of you have a strong sense of entitlement, especially with what you consider an issue of Liberty. Let's get real here, there is nothing robbed from you, you just don't want some female getting contraception.

Now for the broken record: Conservatives, keep running on this platform, please!

With regard to the original Tea Party slogan, you might not be aware of this but, you have representation. Now pay your taxes!

How DARE you accuse anyone else of having a sense of entitlement? You are like a spoiled child, feeling that you are entitled to have someone else pay for whatever it is that you want at that moment. In case you haven't gotten this yet, most of us don't care if a woman uses contraception; we just expect her to pay for it!

I don't understand why you spend your time on a forum dedicated to fundamental liberty, but degrade the concept at every opportunity.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 3, 2012

ManInBlack said:
[snip]
Are you insane? The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation, not the executive branch. And FYI, the equal protection clause is not one of the amendments; it is part of the original document. Maybe you should try reading the constitution rather than speaking from your usual position of total ignorance.

[snip

Sorry, cutting through the BS.

SCOTUS falls under Government.

I see, so by your argument than Negro Americans are not Free, and females do not have a Constitutional protection to vote?

The Equal Protection Clause is not part of the Constitution, which is, interestingly, made up of Amendments--and some other things too; I could have sworn I reade somewhere about it in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Citizen · Mar 3, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
SNIP Liberty run-amok; some of you have a strong sense of entitlement, especially with what you consider an issue of Liberty. Let's get real here, there is nothing robbed from you, you just don't want some female getting contraception.

Ummm. OK. Lemme see:

I spend a few paragraphs laying out the rationale for you. And all you offer is a simple declaration. Not even a refutation. Not even a refutation full of lies and half-truths. Just a simple contradictory statement.

Oh, yeah. I see your logic. Plain as day. My, god! To think how I was lured by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard. Christ Almighty! Dear god above! I owe my narrow escape to you BerettaLady! I am forever in your debt! [/sarcasm]

[/fighting] Look, Beretta. You gotta work on doing your own thinking as compared to doing your own feeling. There are just tons of people, destructive or selfish or both, who just love being able to manipulate the feelings of others for political benefit and monetary profit. There is even a bit of a formal subject about manipulating feelings called called rhetoric. Undermining feeling-manipulation was a big reason why the Founders promoted education, why Jefferson established UVa and tried to establish state-funded education. Until you replace more feeling with more thinking you are going to be a pawn for manipulators, regardless of their political stripe.

PS: Lets not overlook that the contraception-insurance argument discussed here has coercion underlying it. Obamacare is forced.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 3, 2012

ManInBlack said:
How DARE you accuse anyone else of having a sense of entitlement? You are like a spoiled child, feeling that you are entitled to have someone else pay for whatever it is that you want at that moment. In case you haven't gotten this yet, most of us don't care if a woman uses contraception; we just expect her to pay for it!

I don't understand why you spend your time on a forum dedicated to fundamental liberty, but degrade the concept at every opportunity.

I didn't state that I wanted your pay. I have stated on a number of ocassions that Corporations and the wealthy ought to have the piss taxed out of them.

You aren't paying for the contraception, the female who is paying for the insurance is paying for a bundle of medical coverages, including contraception.

When a Religious Institution makes its way into the Private Sector, then they have to abide by Government mandates like all other Corporations. If Religious Institutions don't like it, they can stay where they belong, a Religious Institution (that is supposed to be non-profit).

ManInBlack · Mar 3, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
Sorry, cutting through the BS.

SCOTUS falls under Government.

The only branch of the government pushing this regulation is the executive branch. This is not a fused, parliamentary system. "The government" does not get to just push through mandates based on its own interpretation of the constitution.

I see, so by your argument than Negro Americans are not Free, and females do not have a Constitutional protection to vote?

You should lay off the drugs; now your seeing things that aren't there.

The Equal Protection Clause is not part of the Constitution, which is, interestingly, made up of Amendments--and some other things too; I could have sworn I reade somewhere about it in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Please translate this into English, and I'll be happy to respond to it.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 3, 2012

Citizen said:
Ummm. OK. Lemme see:

I spend a few paragraphs laying out the rationale for you. And all you offer is a simple declaration. Not even a refutation. Not even a refutation full of lies and half-truths. Just a simple contradictory statement.

Oh, yeah. I see your logic. Plain as day. My, god! To think how I was lured by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard. Christ Almighty! Dear god above! I owe my narrow escape to you BerettaLady! I am forever in your debt! [/sarcasm]

[/fighting] Look, Beretta. You gotta work on doing your own thinking as compared to doing your own feeling. There are just tons of people, destructive or selfish or both, who just love being able to manipulate the feelings of others for political benefit and monetary profit. There is even a bit of a formal subject about manipulating feelings called called rhetoric. Undermining feeling-manipulation was a big reason why the Founders promoted education, why Jefferson established UVa and tried to establish state-funded education. Until you replace more feeling with more thinking you are going to be a pawn for manipulators, regardless of their political stripe.

PS: Lets not overlook that the contraception-insurance argument discussed here has coercion underlying it. Obamacare is forced.

Appealing to Authority is a fallacy. Are there any thoughts that you might have of your own?

You are the one appealing to Authority, not me. I do plenty of reading, and rarely quote one person, there is a reason for that.

With regard to Coercion, that is how the Power of Government is wielded.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 3, 2012

ManInBlack said:
(1)The only branch of the government pushing this regulation is the executive branch. This is not a fused, parliamentary system. "The government" does not get to just push through mandates based on its own interpretation of the constitution.

(2)You should lay off the drugs; now your seeing things that aren't there.

(3)Please translate this into English, and I'll be happy to respond to it.

(1) We have 'branches' of Government. There is nothing unusual about a President imposing a mandate, hell, Congress imposing a mandate; if either mandates are Constitutional then they will be found Constitutional by SCOTUS.

(2) ...

(3) You have been responding to all of my posts, there is no need to translate.

ManInBlack · Mar 3, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
I didn't state that I wanted your pay. I have stated on a number of ocassions that Corporations and the wealthy ought to have the piss taxed out of them.

Yes, how could I forget your mindless call to envy and class warfare...

You aren't paying for the contraception, the female who is paying for the insurance is paying for a bundle of medical coverages, including contraception.

Wrong. The whole point of insurance is that the individual paying premium does not have to pay the full cost for coverage. Let's say her contraception is $20/month. If her co-pay is $10, the other $10 is picked up not just by the employer, but by the other members of the risk pool who aren't making use of that coverage.

When a Religious Institution makes its way into the Private Sector, then they have to abide by Government mandates like all other Corporations. If Religious Institutions don't like it, they can stay where they belong, a Religious Institution (that is supposed to be non-profit).

They are non-profits, you twit.

Unfortunately, if a religious institution wants to open up a hospital to provide not-for-profit medical services, people like you still step in to inflict your own (terrible) ideas about "how things should be." Good job.

I may reconsider my position on this.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member