Posted on 03/10/2012 8:26:35 AM PST by pinochet
I am sick and tired of hearing contraceptives being described as a form of health care. In my opinion, contraceptives are a form of cosmetic product, like lipstick and nail polish, and the government has no business giving free cosmetics to people.
If we continue to describe contraceptives as a form of health care, then what disease are contraceptives protecting us from? The disease of pregnancy? Some radical feminists in the 1970s, used to describe pregnancy as a disease, and most Americans regarded them as crazy people. Today, those looney feminists of the 1970s, do not seem so crazy after all, because they are now making federal health policies.
The Catholic Church and its supporters are missing a golden opportunity, to talk about the tough issues that confront the future of America and Europe. We need to expand the debate on contraception beyond the religious freedom issue, and talk about the type of societies that America and Europe will be, 50 years from today. All those freepers who are parents and grandparents of young children, need to talk about the world that those children will inherit.
How do you figure they’re cosmetics?
And, yes!, the libs DO consider pregnancy a disease.
Actually, THEY are the disease and the only cure is an informed electorate. I don't see that in the offing any time soon. Too many sheeple cannot distinguish between comments like Rush's--he gave Ms. Fluke's own words as definition for her being a slut and prostitute. Then he apologized. The left wants to equate that with Louis C.K.'s and Bill Maher's horrible comments about Sarah Palin and her children. We are still waiting for an apology from C.K. and Maher, although I just discount them as human beings.
At the moment Mahrer is being sued by an ex for abuse. Hope he gets soaked.
vaudine
Sebelius is a particularly dreadful figure ~ driven mad by her inability to bear children she's intent on killing everybody she can.
No one is forcing people to take BC. People no longer want a bunch of kids.
Well, the Commie-Fudge-Packer-in-Chief thinks it’s a punishment.
Maher has this “pattern” ~ no doubt his ex has videos of him saying what he said about Palin.
Bump for later.
If you are a moonbat, being female is the genetic disease.
All the efforts are to eliminate the condition of female.
The only solution is to eradicate the moonbats.
If you are a moonbat, being female is the genetic disease.
All the efforts are to eliminate the condition of female.
The only solution is to eradicate the moonbats.
So getting these Feminists married off is the solution?Who do you think is going to marry these loons?There aren’t enough blind guys in the country to even make a dent in the problem.
These are good questions about whether birth control is a “health” issue as such.
I wish we could have an honest calm debate about birth control. And among the issues to be discussed would be, why Sandra Fluke and her people make this issue about college girls and birth control. Why is there this presumption that college girls need to be on the pill?
Why does a young healthy college girl need to be on the pill in the first place? If a girl has any morals about her, she has no need to be on the pill.
Why is there a presumption that, if people are involved with sex, that the government/health insurers should provide free birth control?
Why is there this presumption that there is some civil right to pursue “sexual gratification” , if I can use that term, and have birth control and abortion available to absolve you of responsibility for choices you made to do those sorts of things?
Then send them to the vegetable garden, and when that’s done they can take the sheep to the lower pasture.
No, we don't - not in the context of a political campaign anyway. That is precisely one of the things that would make Santorum such a horrific general election nominee. Rick WANTS to talk about just that, and Obama would like nothing better than to talk about settled social issues such as contraception rather than his crappy stewardship of the economy.
For the purposes of winning elections, the debate should be confined to ONLY the outrageous scope of Obamacare and religious freedom issues.
Culturally, outside of the realm of political campaigns, there is a good argument to be made that shrinking Westernized society birthrates is perhaps a sign of decline. Saying that, I don't (nor do the vast majority of people) oppose contraception - and they aren't going to vote for someone babbling about that. Additionally, a lot of this is just a hallmark of a rich society. Japan has the same problem with declining birthrates. Wealthy societies tend to offer people far more choices in life and the result seems to be folks end up having fewer babies.
>>>>How do you figure they’re cosmetics?
Because health care is something you give to sick people, in order for them to become well. The term health care can also be used to describe a product you give to healthy people, in order to prevent disease, such as immunizations.
According to my world view, there is greater justification in describing toothpaste as a form of health care, than there is in describing contraceptives as health care. If used consistently, toothpaste prevents the disease of tooth decay. Now, that is a positive heath benefit that we want to see! Right?
What about contraception? If a woman uses contraception consistently, she will never get pregnant. Is that a positive “health benefit” that we want to see?
I believe in personal responsibility, and I do not believe in making contraception illegal. But I am uncomfortable with the use of the term “health care” to describe contraceptives. Contraceptives do not prevent or cure disease, for the most part.
I don’t disagree that classifying them as necessary to “health care” is generally a misnomer, though it’s complicated by the fact that certain types of birth control have other medical applications. I’m just curious why you think cosmetics is a better category.
Most women do want to have a baby eventually. Just not at the wrong time in their life.
Premise: Contraception [abortion] concerns women`s health.
A. Fact: Woman`s health concerns her bodily organs and tissues.
B. FACT: A fetus is not an organ.
C. Fact: Fetus has its own organs
D. FACT: Every woman was a fetus.
E. Every woman has her own set of organs.
F. FACT:WOMAN CANNOT HAVE 2 SETS OF EVERY ORGAN.
Ergo woman`s health has nothing to do with fetus inside.
D. Conclusion. Fetus health is concerned with fetus organs and tissues, not mother`s organs and tissues.
H. Ergo Premise A. is False.
Second Argument:
A. Premise: Contraception [abortion] concerns women`s health.
Contraception mean`s [lit.] `against conception.`
But conception is the result of a MALE AND FEMALE COPULATING.
ERGO CONTRACEPTION ALSO INFERS A MAN`S HEALTH TOO.
WHY? DURING CONCEPTION ACT THE WOMAN COULD HAVE GIVEN HIM HERPES,
Therefore the argument`s premise is fallacious and and an omissive contradiction in terms.
Third Argument:
A. Premise: Contraception [abortion] concerns women`s health.
Contraception mean`s [lit.] `against conception.`
[definition of terms:
Definition of CONTRACEPTION
``: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation`` [Merriam-Webster Dictionary]
B, Contraception therefore must occur before or during the act of impregnation before the egg is fertilized [biology 101].
C. But abortion occurs ONLY AFTER CONCEPTION.
Abortion does not fit the definition above of contraception.
D Ergo abortion is NOT CONTRACEPTION
E. Ergo the Premise A. is false.
>>>No one is forcing people to take BC. People no longer want a bunch of kids
I agree with you. People should be free to buy contraceptives and use them. It is a free country.
But should contraceptives be provided FREE by the taxpayer? Should Western governments be giving out FREE contraception, at a time when their populations are declining? Does that serve the long term interests of America and the West?
The US gov't is not giving out free BC just requiring that insurance companies cover it. Even if the gov't gave away free BC, people who want babies will still have them at the numbers they want and people who don't want babies won't have them regardless.
Free BC is not going to lower birth rates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.