Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XIV

[Grievous]

Originally Posted by JJJ's Ulcer

Do you understand how the law works? What would be ruled unconstitutional? There would have to be a specific provision to be challenged. And the most important and most legally suspect provision was already judged constitutional last summer. So on what grounds would a law that goes 95% into effect in a year's time and has already survived a major challenge be dismantled? The thing's not going to fall apart on a birth-control provision, that's for sure. And the SCOTUS is not going to overturn a ruling they just made either. Do you understand how damaging that would be to them, not only their reputation, but their ability to protect future rulings from being similarly overturned? There's this thing called "precedent."

I don't think women should be entitled to the day after pill by their bosses. Don't even bring religion into it, since when is keeping a girl from having a baby a problem for the company, I say if you can't handle a kid and your job then lay off of the sex.

[wiegeabo]

Originally Posted by Grievous

I don't think women should be entitled to the day after pill by their bosses. Don't even bring religion into it, since when is keeping a girl from having a baby a problem for the company, I say if you can't handle a kid and your job then lay off of the sex.

"It's my body! MY body!"

"But you have to be responsible for this part it..."

[Grievous]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

"It's my body! MY body!"

"But you have to be responsible for this part it..."

The girl is responsible if she gets pregnant, not the company she works for, they didn't tell her to have sex. I honestly think some women feel they have a right to have sex and since it could end up with a hard outcome they think its society's job to take care of that for them.

[darkscarecrow]

Originally Posted by Grievous

The girl is responsible if she gets pregnant, not the company she works for, they didn't tell her to have sex. I honestly think some women feel they have a right to have sex and since it could end up with a hard outcome they think its society's job to take care of that for them.

The only instances of where I think abortion should be legal is in the case of incest or rape. Other than that, I consider abortion "murder". Libs want the government to keep up prisoners who rape and murder all the time. You the taxpayer are keeping them up. Serial Killer-rapist, mass murderers and the like, all while innocent children are denied the right to live and be happy. That's a screwed up society! Where are the ACLU types protesting abortion clinics when they are out protesting the execution of a serial killer.

[Fading]

To be fair, women bear the brunt of the sexual encounter. A guy has a one night stand without birth control measures, in many cases he can walk away with his life carrying on like normal. A woman has her life changed as she has to carry, birth, and take care of the child.

While I do agree that common sense is the better path, i.e. don't have unprotected sex if you're not willing to live with the consequences. Pregnancy can cause health problems. I personally have no problem in having birth control covered by insurance. Especially if it keeps unprepared women from having kids, and either dumping them off in orphanages, abusing them in anger, or aborting.

When it comes to abortion though, that I agree on. In that if you choose to have unprotected sex, you should have to bear that child. It's not the baby's fault you and your partner chose to have sex, and place feeling good above critical thinking.

Note though that I'm talking mutually agrred upon sex inbetween two consenting, healthy, mentally stable adults. Obviously in cases of rape, incest, mental handicapped partners, and the mother's health it's a different story.

[Fading]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

I guess if you can't win the electoral college legitimately rig the system in your favor

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bit-explained/

This falls in line with all the attacks on voting the republicans tried last election. Since blocking opposing Americans from voting against you didn't work, I guess rendering their vote null is the next logical step.

I mean they tried to claim Obama wasn't born here. Put a republican on a ticket labeled as a democrat in one race (aka republican vs republican). Tried to block a voting day black people historically vote in mass on. Tried to pass laws that even they said would, "putt Mitt Romney in office". Tried to remove third parties from the ticket.Hired a firm that committed fraud, and have tried impeachment, and secetion. I'm not surprised by anything at this point.

[BMM]

Nevermind.

[Grievous]

Originally Posted by Fading

To be fair, women bear the brunt of the sexual encounter. A guy has a one night stand without birth control measures, in many cases he can walk away with his life carrying on like normal. A woman has her life changed as she has to carry, birth, and take care of the child.

While I do agree that common sense is the better path, i.e. don't have unprotected sex if you're not willing to live with the consequences. Pregnancy can cause health problems. I personally have no problem in having birth control covered by insurance. Especially if it keeps unprepared women from having kids, and either dumping them off in orphanages, abusing them in anger, or aborting.

When it comes to abortion though, that I agree on. In that if you choose to have unprotected sex, you should have to bear that child. It's not the baby's fault you and your partner chose to have sex, and place feeling good above critical thinking.

Note though that I'm talking mutually agrred upon sex inbetween two consenting, healthy, mentally stable adults. Obviously in cases of rape, incest, mental handicapped partners, and the mother's health it's a different story.

Couldn't her place of work just include during her job training a lession on how unprotected sex could led to pregnancy and problems if you are not ready to have a kid. Then top of the lession wih "you have a job now so think before you jump into the bedroom." I think most women understand that protected sex is the right choice for them if they don't feel ready for a kid. I just don't agree on telling the company "Hey I can't afford a kid right now, so give me money to go on the pill." Sex to me is a luxury not a entitlement, so the girl should get the pills with her own money or make sure the guy she is with uses a condom.

[wiegeabo]

It should be an option for the business or insurance company. Not a mandate.

Now, an insurance company that doesn't cover it is sorta just shooting themselves in the foot. Not only is it a competitive advantage ("Hey, come to us, we'll give you birth control coverage!"), but one would think it would keep their costs down. Cheaper to cover birth control than to pay for having a kid and all the prenatal visits and meds.

[Marvolo]

Rush Limbaugh

Well, it's a good point. You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-a-gun/267279/
What a dumb ****.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by Grievous

I don't think women should be entitled to the day after pill by their bosses. Don't even bring religion into it, since when is keeping a girl from having a baby a problem for the company, I say if you can't handle a kid and your job then lay off of the sex.

Do you feel the same way about health plans from work covering Viagra and other boner pills? Because I know many who oppose this do not.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

Do you feel the same way about health plans from work covering Viagra and other boner pills? Because I know many who oppose this do not.

I'm feeling immature today.

[Kelly]

I find it very hard to see Insurance covering things that "are a choice"....IF a breast reduction is needed because of back problems that is a choice, but I don't believe my insurance would pay for breast augmentation nor shoud it in my opinion....or augmentation of ANYTHING : ) for joy or cosmetic reasons.

Wow trying to word that nicely is tough....lol
Unless the abortion is for medical purposes, as in the woman's health is at risk without it...then insurance should not pay for it...the morning after pill, NO, unless the doctor can prove that it is for medical purposes and the woman's health is at stake without it.

Choices are choices, make the right ones and you won't be needing the morning after pill. (In case of rape, which is a whole other story, I see no problem in the insurance company reimbursing for the morning after pill....)

[Grievous]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

Do you feel the same way about health plans from work covering Viagra and other boner pills? Because I know many who oppose this do not.

Anything that envolves sex should be the responsibility of the person. Someone walking into a job interview and saying they want Viagra for sex to be provided for them is laughable. I'm not sexist, I will say though if women can get pills from their work then men should get their special pills too or condoms. Since it is sexist for women to get stuff given to them for free when all they want is to have sex but men would have to go out and buy it if they want sex.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Grievous

Anything that envolves sex should be the responsibility of the person. Someone walking into a job interview and saying they want Viagra for sex to be provided for them is laughable. I'm not sexist, I will say though if women can get pills from their work then men should get their special pills too or condoms. Since it is sexist for women to get stuff given to them for free when all they want is to have sex but men would have to go out and buy it if they want sex.

There are actual medical reasons for women to need birth control pills...without going into great detail because we are in mixed company, suffice it to say that birth control pills help women control the time of the month that for many of them ends them in bed sick, in extreme pain. If the doctor writes the prescription for that reason, then insurance should pay for it. If it is for simple birth control, then that is questionable to some and I can understand that...

[Grievous]

Originally Posted by Kelly

There are actual medical reasons for women to need birth control pills...without going into great detail because we are in mixed company, suffice it to say that birth control pills help women control the time of the month that for many of them ends them in bed sick, in extreme pain. If the doctor writes the prescription for that reason, then insurance should pay for it. If it is for simple birth control, then that is questionable to some and I can understand that...

I understand the deal with health concerns. My arguments are the ones that simply want to have sex and feel it should be someone else's job to make sure they don't get pregnant.

[Two-Face=Badass]

Just get a single payer healthcare system and these arguments won't even occur.

[moviedoors]

Originally Posted by Grievous

Anything that envolves sex should be the responsibility of the person. Someone walking into a job interview and saying they want Viagra for sex to be provided for them is laughable. I'm not sexist, I will say though if women can get pills from their work then men should get their special pills too or condoms. Since it is sexist for women to get stuff given to them for free when all they want is to have sex but men would have to go out and buy it if they want sex.

Dude, viagra is already covered by health insurance. You have your sexist equation backwards.

[Pink Ranger]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Rush Limbaugh

"Well, it's a good point. You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-a-gun/267279/
What a dumb ****.

Let's ask Rush if painkiller addiction should be treated the same way.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Two-Face=Badass

Just get a single payer healthcare system and these arguments won't even occur.

All they should do to pass single payer is label it a business incentive that it cuts down their expenses. Call it something like, Business Expense Reduction Act, then the Republicans will go for it. lol

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by Kelly

I find it very hard to see Insurance covering things that "are a choice"....IF a breast reduction is needed because of back problems that is a choice, but I don't believe my insurance would pay for breast augmentation nor shoud it in my opinion....or augmentation of ANYTHING : ) for joy or cosmetic reasons.

Wow trying to word that nicely is tough....lol
Unless the abortion is for medical purposes, as in the woman's health is at risk without it...then insurance should not pay for it...the morning after pill, NO, unless the doctor can prove that it is for medical purposes and the woman's health is at stake without it.

Choices are choices, make the right ones and you won't be needing the morning after pill. (In case of rape, which is a whole other story, I see no problem in the insurance company reimbursing for the morning after pill....)

I look at it this way, I pay for insurance to cover me regardless of my choices. I pay for a service. When the insurance company starts giving me free insurance, as in charity, they can pick and choose what they cover, but as long as I pay them I expect them to shut up and cover me. Obviously insurance companies don't see it this way, and luckily I have insurance that is pretty damn forgiving.

And I don't see how having a bad back and pain because of naturally ridiculously large breats or the reduction of said breasts is much of a choice. We pay for insurance so we don't have to go through life suffering. We pay to be covered. If a woman needs a breast reduction it should be covered. The same way a man suffering from scrotal lymphedemea would be covered.

[darkscarecrow]

Originally Posted by Grievous

Couldn't her place of work just include during her job training a lession on how unprotected sex could led to pregnancy and problems if you are not ready to have a kid. Then top of the lession wih "you have a job now so think before you jump into the bedroom." I think most women understand that protected sex is the right choice for them if they don't feel ready for a kid. I just don't agree on telling the company "Hey I can't afford a kid right now, so give me money to go on the pill." Sex to me is a luxury not a entitlement, so the girl should get the pills with her own money or make sure the guy she is with uses a condom.

Damn good point!

[darkscarecrow]

Originally Posted by moviedoors

Dude, viagra is already covered by health insurance. You have your sexist equation backwards.

Well I have health insurance and it sure as hell won't pay for me to get a prescription. On that you most certainly are wrong and how can you call this person "sexist" is beyond me. I read his comments and have not found one sexist comment. It's pretty pathetic when a person has to resort to the old tried and true liberal playbook of calling somebody who disagrees with them "racist/sexist/bigot/homophobes". Just because he stated that it is not the employers responsibility to buy her the pill or her contraceptive. It's not sexist and I believe the person you insulted stated that it's not the employer's responsibility to provide "Viagra" either. You must have failed to read that on purpose or you are just the stereotypical Lib. who just jumps to irrational conclusions?

[darkscarecrow]

Oh, BTW where I live we have a health department that provides free condoms to those who go in and ask and I think they provide the woman with free birth control as well to low income families. So why give your boss the bill when you can more than likely get them for free and if not. Remember the old saying "If your gonna play you gotta pay".

[moviedoors]

Originally Posted by darkscarecrow

Well I have health insurance and it sure as hell won't pay for me to get a prescription. On that you most certainly are wrong and how can you call this person "sexist" is beyond me. I read his comments and have not found one sexist comment. It's pretty pathetic when a person has to resort to the old tried and true liberal playbook of calling somebody who disagrees with them "racist/sexist/bigot/homophobes". Just because he stated that it is not the employers responsibility to buy her the pill or her contraceptive. It's not sexist and I believe the person you insulted stated that it's not the employer's responsibility to provide "Viagra" either. You must have failed to read that on purpose or you are just the stereotypical Lib. who just jumps to irrational conclusions?

I didn't call him sexist. Chill. Irrational conclusions...