Saw a billboard stating so. Had a URL for this nifty website that includes such gems as "Birth Control causes Abortion" and a loose connection between birth control and the amish school shootings.
http://respectlifetulsa.org
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Saw a billboard stating so. Had a URL for this nifty website that includes such gems as "Birth Control causes Abortion" and a loose connection between birth control and the amish school shootings.
http://respectlifetulsa.org
I think it's in response to the "Birth Control is easy" billboards (there's one on 244 near downtown)
quote:
Originally posted by BKDotCom
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Saw a billboard stating so. Had a URL for this nifty website that includes such gems as "Birth Control causes Abortion" and a loose connection between birth control and the amish school shootings.
http://respectlifetulsa.org
I think it's in response to the "Birth Control is easy" billboards (there's one on 244 near downtown)
It is. There are a lot of planned parenthood references (authors of the other signs)
SGRIZZLE:
I looked at the website and it strikes me as only an opinion page on the issue. You certainly do not fault the creator of that site for having an opinion on the issue of birth control?
BTW, I saw a similar Planned Parenthood billboard on I-44 near Memorial. What is the underlying message of the "Birth Control is Easy" campaign? Is it "easy" because PP provides advice on terminating pregnancies? Seriously, I do not know.
Goody! I was hoping someone would take their side.
Faulting planned parenthood for abortion is like faulting paper for being made into playboy. PP's focus is on PLANNING. They promote prevention, THEN adoption, THEN abortion. If they did not lay out all of the legal options, then they would be seen as overtly biased and counselors should always be unbiased and objective to be effective.
Don't group me as some pro-abortion tree hugger either. I don't give abortions on the weekends and am a huge fan of not being aborted myself. However I do believe that given the current legal status of abortion, PP is very important. They are pushing very hard (and should be respected for) trying to prevent pregnancies. While abstinence is 100% effective (unless you count the virgin mary) studies are showing that abstinence education is not having the desired effect. The problem is that telling someone who is already sexually active that they should quit, largely falls on deaf ears. The message should be this:
If you're not having sex, don't start. If you are having sex, and are unwilling to stop, at least use protection.
Potential adoptive parents are falling off trees, adoption should be pushed more. The recently adopted "Safe Havens" laws are awesome and hopefully will go far to push adoption over abortion.
Now to the opponents site. IT claims a lot of things as factual which are not (people don't abort 1/3rd of pregnancies. If that was true, they have to be doing them at every gas station and grocery store in town). It is not presented as a blog or editiorial as it is not. It is part of a local group, tied with a national one. Their connections between birth control and dead amish kids are far-fetched and in extremely poor taste. The whole site is aimed at being a rallying point for those who agree. Everything, down to the page layout, shows that. It is not aimed at actually convincing people to quit having sex.
Birth control causes abortion???
Do vasectomies count in this equation?
1. Birth control is harmful because it creates a sex on demand attitude, which can lead to sexual assault and rape.
That statement takes bullsh*t to a whole new level.
2. It does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases.
Neither do hamburgers. Should we get rid of hamburgers because they don't protect against STDs?
3. It creates sexual addiction.
Okay, we now have ANOTHER new standard for BS.
4. It causes abortions.
I guess if you define abortion as preventing an egg from attaching to the uterus wall then SOME kinds of birth control do. 'Course the author conveniently lumps them all together making even number 4 little more than BS.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
SGRIZZLE:
I looked at the website and it strikes me as only an opinion page on the issue. You certainly do not fault the creator of that site for having an opinion on the issue of birth control?
Nope. Everybody's entitled to their opinion. But I couldn't help wondering if this is just another Cubs type thing where they pretend to be concerned about something but all they're really interested in is control. In this case, the ol' "barefoot and pregnant" thing comes to mind.
quote:
BTW, I saw a similar Planned Parenthood billboard on I-44 near Memorial. What is the underlying message of the "Birth Control is Easy" campaign? Is it "easy" because PP provides advice on terminating pregnancies? Seriously, I do not know.
You sincerily don't know, you're just asking, huh? Bullcrap. You're just not that stupid. Like Cubs, you just can't resist a chance to get on your Party soapbox. Only your method is even more dishonest than Cubs. Just askin', eh? Ever hear of condoms? Birth control pills? IUDs? Planned Parenthood gives info on all these things too. Know WHY? Because the PRIMARY objective is PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Goody! I was hoping someone would take their side.
Faulting planned parenthood for abortion is like faulting paper for being made into playboy. PP's focus is on PLANNING. They promote prevention, THEN adoption, THEN abortion. If they did not lay out all of the legal options, then they would be seen as overtly biased and counselors should always be unbiased and objective to be effective.
Don't group me as some pro-abortion tree hugger either. I don't give abortions on the weekends and am a huge fan of not being aborted myself. However I do believe that given the current legal status of abortion, PP is very important. They are pushing very hard (and should be respected for) trying to prevent pregnancies. While abstinence is 100% effective (unless you count the virgin mary) studies are showing that abstinence education is not having the desired effect. The problem is that telling someone who is already sexually active that they should quit, largely falls on deaf ears. The message should be this:
If you're not having sex, don't start. If you are having sex, and are unwilling to stop, at least use protection.
Potential adoptive parents are falling off trees, adoption should be pushed more. The recently adopted "Safe Havens" laws are awesome and hopefully will go far to push adoption over abortion.
Now to the opponents site. IT claims a lot of things as factual which are not (people don't abort 1/3rd of pregnancies. If that was true, they have to be doing them at every gas station and grocery store in town). It is not presented as a blog or editiorial as it is not. It is part of a local group, tied with a national one. Their connections between birth control and dead amish kids are far-fetched and in extremely poor taste. The whole site is aimed at being a rallying point for those who agree. Everything, down to the page layout, shows that. It is not aimed at actually convincing people to quit having sex.
Very well said, sgrizzle. My opinions exactly.
I was a "love child" of 2 teenage parents in the 1950s, and was put up for adoption as an infant. I am obviously glad I was not aborted, but I feel abortion should remain safe and legal. I think it is a decision to be made by the woman, her doctors, and her conscience, and no one has the right to criticize her ultimate decision.
I am a big supporter of adoption law reform. I think at the least, all adult adoptees should have access to their original birth certificates. In Oklahoma, we are denied that. Having your original birth certificate is taken for granted by most people and it is hard for many to understand an adoptee's desire for such, but I will leave that discussion to another thread.
PAPA: My question was to SGRIZZ and NOT you. Did you not see that or do you feel that your opinions are so meaningful and important that "you just can't resist the chance" to butt in.
And BTW, do yourself a favor and next time you baldly state as fact something such as PP's primary objective, at least take the time to visit their website. I recommend the following link pertaining to their mission statement--
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/mission-and-policy-statements.htm
Funny, preventing unwanted pregancices didn't make the list.
Oh,as for ME being "dishonest". We'll just leave that one alone, in light of the foregoing.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
PAPA: My question was to SGRIZZ and NOT you. Did you not see that or do you feel that your opinions are so meaningful and important that "you just can't resist the chance" to butt in.
Sorry, I didn't see the part in the terms and conditions that prohibits members from throwing in their two cents worth. I'll be watching to see if you abide by that rule.
quote:
And BTW, do yourself a favor and next time you baldly state as fact something such as PP's primary objective, at least take the time to visit their website. I recommend the following link pertaining to their mission statement--
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/mission-and-policy-statements.htm
Maybe you oughta take your own advice and read it yourself.
"Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to
manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that
reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual's right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life, strong family relationships, and
population stability."
Is the problem that they didn't use the exact words you demand or were the words too big for ya?
quote:
Funny, preventing unwanted pregancices didn't make the list.
Here, this oughta help ya:
http://www.onelook.com/
quote:
Oh,as for ME being "dishonest". We'll just leave that one alone, in light of the foregoing.
I don't blame ya. I wouldn't want to call any more attention to it either if I were you.
COITUS INTERUPTUS hurts, man.
I cannot imagine how the prolife position can be distilled or distorted into being agin birth control.
The abstinence movement did not work, so instead of appealing to higher sensibilities of wanna-be breeders 'they' go with fear.
Why not 'abortion hurts,' something we can all agree on?
I always find it illuminating to listen to men argue the pros and cons of birth control and abortion.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
I always find it illuminating to listen to men argue the pros and cons of birth control and abortion.
You seem to be saying it's none of men's business. As remarkable as it seems to appear to some women, many of us feel that we have an equal responsibility in the whole reproductive process. Most of the biology textbooks that I've seen say it takes two humans to reproduce. Do you feel that men should just butt out of the whole birth control process? If you do, are you willing to put the responsibility of feeding and raising the resulting offspring solely on the woman?
Men have no place in women's reproductive rights. Becoming and being a father or parent is one thing -- telling me how and when I can buy or use birth control or get an abortion is nunya.
Here is something interesting from feministing.com via salon
Hold on to your hats. I hear from a little birdie that the Bush administration has hired Dr. Eric Keroack to oversee Title X funding—the only federal program devoted entirely to family planning and reproductive health.
Keroack, who is currently the medical director of a Massachusetts pregnancy crisis center (you know, the folks that lie to women), will be the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs.
Keroack is not only a well-known anti-choicer, he's also a major proponent of abstinence-only education...and when I say proponent, I mean ****ing insane person.
At the Annual Abstinence Leadership Conference in Kansas, Keroack defended abstinence (in an aptly titled talk, "If I Only Had a Brain") by claiming that sex causes people to go through oxytocin withdrawal which in turn prevents people from bonding in relationships. Seriously.
[Keroack] explained that oxytocin is released during positive social interaction, massage, hugs, "trust" encounters, and sexual intercourse. "It promotes bonding by reducing fear and anxiety in social settings, increasing trust and trustworthiness, reducing stress and pain, and decreasing social aggression," he said.
But apparently if you've had sex with too many people you use up all that oxytocin: "People who have misused their sexual faculty and become bonded to multiple persons will diminish the power of oxytocin to maintain a permanent bond with an individual." Hear that? Too many sexual partners and you'll never love again!
The good doctor has also explained his use of ultrasounds in anti-abortion counseling by stating, "even Midas lets you look at your old muffler before they advise you to change it."
And this is the guy who is going to have control over hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding meant to provide access to contraception and reproductive health information—specifically to low income Americans.
I'm trying to figure out who the best folks are to contact to oppose this dude--apparently there's no confirmation process for this position, he just shows up to work. On Monday.
Birth control just got harder.
So Nellie, I'm not arguing, just want an opinion on something.
You have a young couple. The man either doesn't want kids or wants to wait until later (married, buy a house, better job or something.) The woman does want kids so she stops taking birth control without telling her SO.
Other than the obvious "lying is bad" part, how does this reflect on male and female roles in birth control choices? Is it within her rights for the woman to do this? If the man fathers a child under false pretenses, is he still just as legally liable? If he is legally liable, could the aforementioned lying be considered some sort of breach of contract?
Just throwing something out there for discussion.
If he's so worried about his lying girlfriend getting pregnant then that sounds like a communication problem -- or he could be responsible for his own birth control. OH WAIT that's right -- the best medical scientists in the world still can't come up with effective oral birth control for men. Though, I know very few women who would trust a man who told her 'it's okay baby -- I'm on the pill."
Why is Viagra covered by insurance and birth control isn't???
And don't forget -- the pill isn't 100 percent effective and if you are on certain medications, it isn't effective at all. Women get pregnant accidentally all the time while using birth control responsibly.
We are all responsible for our OWN reproductive rights...You know...personal responsibility.
Don't play the game (sex) if you don't want to be a parent. That's what abstinence is about. Being responsible. The same as being responsible about taking birth control if you choose to have sex and don't want to be a parent.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Why is Viagra covered by insurance and birth control isn't???
I think there might be a Catholic Priest joke in there.
Somewhere.
<Nellie wrote:
Why is Viagra covered by insurance and birth control isn't???
<end clip>
Depends on your insurer. Some do cover the pill. But some insurers won't cover Viagra, either. There's no set pattern, really.
When I was younger, my insurer didn't cover the cost of my condoms, either.
Every insurance I've had covers it.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Men have no place in women's reproductive rights.
Then you absolve men of all responsibility for birth control?
quote:
Becoming and being a father or parent is one thing -- telling me how and when I can buy or use birth control or get an abortion is nunya.
I don't remember ever telling you that.
Yes I absolve all men of being responsible for birth control. I don't know a single woman who depends on a man for birth control -- unless of course we're talking vasectomy.
I was using the 'you' as a general term for men.
Do a little checking -- very few insurance policies pay for birth control. If they do pay for it, it is still expensive. Pharmacists, maybe it's both men and women, are also choosing not to fill prescriptions for birth control because it's against their religion or whatever.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Yes I absolve all men of being responsible for birth control. I don't know a single woman who depends on a man for birth control -- unless of course we're talking vasectomy.
I was using the 'you' as a general term for men.
I would point out that male birth control methods namely the condom do have other uses such as stopping VD. So I think men have to be responsible for birth control if only to protect themselves and thier partner from disease.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Yes I absolve all men of being responsible for birth control. I don't know a single woman who depends on a man for birth control -- unless of course we're talking vasectomy.
I was using the 'you' as a general term for men.
Do a little checking -- very few insurance policies pay for birth control. If they do pay for it, it is still expensive. Pharmacists, maybe it's both men and women, are also choosing not to fill prescriptions for birth control because it's against their religion or whatever.
Every plan I have ever had over the years, and my and my wife's employers love to change regularly, have covered "the pill", all of them. And none were expensive, it's always been in the very cheapest class of drug in the plan.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Yes I absolve all men of being responsible for birth control.
Then, if a woman fails to use an effective enough birth control, the man shouldn't have to bear any responsibility for the child? I kinda doubt if you'd stick to your position in that case.
quote:
I don't know a single woman who depends on a man for birth control -- unless of course we're talking vasectomy.
Sounds to me like you've got a little bit of an attitude toward men. Seems to me like it's a SHARED responsibility.
quote:
I was using the 'you' as a general term for men.
Yes, I've noticed that you do generalize men. If a man does that, he's called a sexist. What do you call a woman who does it?
quote:
Do a little checking -- very few insurance policies pay for birth control. If they do pay for it, it is still expensive. Pharmacists, maybe it's both men and women, are also choosing not to fill prescriptions for birth control because it's against their religion or whatever.
Okay, I did a little checking. Some pay for Viagra and not birth control. Some pay for birth control and not Viagra. Some pay for both. So what's your point?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Every insurance I've had covers it.
Same here. And the copay for BCPs was the same as the copay for anything else.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
If he's so worried about his lying girlfriend getting pregnant then that sounds like a communication problem -- or he could be responsible for his own birth control. OH WAIT that's right -- the best medical scientists in the world still can't come up with effective oral birth control for men. Though, I know very few women who would trust a man who told her 'it's okay baby -- I'm on the pill."
Why is Viagra covered by insurance and birth control isn't???
So out of all your explanations, you leave the woman blameless?
I don't think she was saying the woman was admirable. Just that whenever two people (of the opposite sex) engage in sex, there is always a risk of pregnancy. Every guy should accept that he could become financially responsible for a child if he has sex.
The financial responsibility of raising a child is different from the right of a person to control their body. There are many things in a relationship that are shared, at least in healthy relationships. And most women will listen to their significant other when making life altering decisions like having kids. But ultimately, if a woman does not want to be pregnant, no one should be able to force her.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I don't think she was saying the woman was admirable. Just that whenever two people (of the opposite sex) engage in sex, there is always a risk of pregnancy. Every guy should accept that he could become financially responsible for a child if he has sex.
Unless I misunderstood, she said she completely absolves men of all responsibility because birth control is none of our business.
quote:
The financial responsibility of raising a child is different from the right of a person to control their body. There are many things in a relationship that are shared, at least in healthy relationships. And most women will listen to their significant other when making life altering decisions like having kids. But ultimately, if a woman does not want to be pregnant, no one should be able to force her.
I absolutely agree with everything you said here. But saying that men shouldn't have (or at least shouldn't express) an opinion on birth control is as asinine as saying that anyone who hasn't served in the military shouldn't express an opinion on the war. A lot of this is essentially moot to me because A. I'm married and strictly monogamous and B. I've been neutered. And while, strictly speaking it was my final decision to get a vasectomy, you'd better believe that my wife AND I discussed and I would NOT have done it if she had opposed it.
While I agree no-one should be able to force her, I disagree that men are totally out of the picture. The most commonly available form of birth control is for men to use and both parties have equal responsibility for the consequences of sex and birth control decisions.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
OH WAIT that's right -- the best medical scientists in the world still can't come up with effective oral birth control for men.
That comment reminds me of Carly Simon's deeply ignorant statement some time ago. She said, "If breast cancer were a men's disease, there would have been a cure for it by now."
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
OH WAIT that's right -- the best medical scientists in the world still can't come up with effective oral birth control for men.
That comment reminds me of Carly Simon's deeply ignorant statement some time ago. She said, "If breast cancer were a men's disease, there would have been a cure for it by now."
Yeah, because they cured and are now vaccinating for prostate cancer.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
OH WAIT that's right -- the best medical scientists in the world still can't come up with effective oral birth control for men.
That comment reminds me of Carly Simon's deeply ignorant statement some time ago. She said, "If breast cancer were a men's disease, there would have been a cure for it by now."
Yeah, because they cured and are now vaccinating for prostate cancer.
Exactly.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Yes I absolve all men of being responsible for birth control. I don't know a single woman who depends on a man for birth control -- unless of course we're talking vasectomy.
Then do you absolve all men of paying child support?
Again, take responsibility for your actions. You bring a child into this world it is both parents responsibility to pay for it.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Yes I absolve all men of being responsible for birth control.
Again, take responsibility for your actions. You bring a child into this world it is both parents responsibility to pay for it.
You seem to be inconsistent on what you want from men here. Which is it? For them to take responsibility for their actions or be absolved of all responsibility?
I lean heavily in favor of men being responsible, both before and after, btw.
And before you respond, watch out. I may just ask Papaspot to take that tape off his mouth and NOBODY wants that to happen.
EDIT: Oops. Too late Pspot changed his avatar. Whazzup with that pspot?
I don't think I am being inconsistent by saying take responsibility for your actions. If you're going to have sex and you make a baby, you have to pay for it, whether it's an accident or intentional.
I don't absolve men of the responsibility of supporting their children, I absolve them of being responsible for my birth control.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
I don't think I am being inconsistent by saying take responsibility for your actions. If you're going to have sex and you make a baby, you have to pay for it, whether it's an accident or intentional.
I don't absolve men of the responsibility of supporting their children, I absolve them of being responsible for my birth control.
I sure don't know why you can't see the inconsistency in that. Looks like to me you want to have your cake and eat it too.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Again, take responsibility for your actions. You bring a child into this world it is both parents responsibility to pay for it.
Whether or not a child is brought into the world is strictly the woman's decision and birth control is none of his business. But if she decides TO bring a baby into the world, the man is responsible too? I see. Must be nice to call ALL the shots.
Two people have sex and a baby is born, both have a responsibility to that child. It's not just a woman's decision to bring a baby into the world. I don't agree with having a baby and not telling the father or hiding it from him. I have known women who did that.
Birth control IS a man's business only to the point that if a man doesn't want to be a father he better use it. If he doesn't trust his wife or girlfriend to use it, he better use it.
I do believe that women should call all the shots when it comes to their own bodies.
quote:
Originally posted by snopes
And before you respond, watch out. I may just ask Papaspot to take that tape off his mouth and NOBODY wants that to happen.
[}:)]
quote:
EDIT: Oops. Too late Pspot changed his avatar. Whazzup with that pspot?
ADD [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Two people have sex and a baby is born, both have a responsibility to that child. It's not just a woman's decision to bring a baby into the world. I don't agree with having a baby and not telling the father or hiding it from him. I have known women who did that.
Birth control IS a man's business only to the point that if a man doesn't want to be a father he better use it. If he doesn't trust his wife or girlfriend to use it, he better use it.
I do believe that women should call all the shots when it comes to their own bodies.
Maybe your're single or maybe you have a completely different kind of marriage than we have but in our marriage, shared responsibility means shared decisions.
Do you think it's okay for a man to get a vasectomy without his wife's knowledge? Or is it different with men?
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Two people have sex and a baby is born, both have a responsibility to that child. It's not just a woman's decision to bring a baby into the world. I don't agree with having a baby and not telling the father or hiding it from him. I have known women who did that.
Birth control IS a man's business only to the point that if a man doesn't want to be a father he better use it. If he doesn't trust his wife or girlfriend to use it, he better use it.
I do believe that women should call all the shots when it comes to their own bodies.
To decode, I think NellieBly is saying:
Male birth control is the man's responsiblity.
Female birth control is the woman's responsibility.
If you're having sex, prepare to deal with having a kid too.
Lying is bad
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Two people have sex and a baby is born, both have a responsibility to that child. It's not just a woman's decision to bring a baby into the world. I don't agree with having a baby and not telling the father or hiding it from him. I have known women who did that.
Birth control IS a man's business only to the point that if a man doesn't want to be a father he better use it. If he doesn't trust his wife or girlfriend to use it, he better use it.
I do believe that women should call all the shots when it comes to their own bodies.
To decode, I think NellieBly is saying:
Male birth control is the man's responsiblity.
Female birth control is the woman's responsibility.
If you're having sex, prepare to deal with having a kid too.
Lying is bad
I'm waiting to see if she'll answer my question about whether it's all right to get a vasectomy without his wife's agreement or at least knowledge.
The gov. should send out a pill pack with every welfare check....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
The gov. should send out a pill pack with every welfare check....
Broken record...
The old welfare queen myth, right? Young, single black woman spitting out babies just to get a bigger welfare check, RIGHT?
People like you make me wanna vomit.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Two people have sex and a baby is born, both have a responsibility to that child. It's not just a woman's decision to bring a baby into the world. I don't agree with having a baby and not telling the father or hiding it from him. I have known women who did that.
Birth control IS a man's business only to the point that if a man doesn't want to be a father he better use it. If he doesn't trust his wife or girlfriend to use it, he better use it.
I do believe that women should call all the shots when it comes to their own bodies.
To decode, I think NellieBly is saying:
Male birth control is the man's responsiblity.
Female birth control is the woman's responsibility.
If you're having sex, prepare to deal with having a kid too.
Lying is bad
I'm waiting to see if she'll answer my question about whether it's all right to get a vasectomy without his wife's agreement or at least knowledge.
I will answer--of course its not all right, just as its not all right for a woman to stop using birth control without telling her significant other.
But that does not change the fact that, ultimately, if a man wants a vasectomy, he has every right to do so, regardless of what any woman has to say. It's his body.
I think Sgrizzle summed it up well. Both partners have a responsibility. When a person's body is involved, though, he or she has the ultimate say in what happens. Still, relationships work best when you talk things out.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I will answer--of course its not all right, just as its not all right for a woman to stop using birth control without telling her significant other.
But that does not change the fact that, ultimately, if a man wants a vasectomy, he has every right to do so, regardless of what any woman has to say. It's his body.
I think Sgrizzle summed it up well. Both partners have a responsibility. When a person's body is involved, though, he or she has the ultimate say in what happens. Still, relationships work best when you talk things out.
Well, I'm again in complete agreement with you. But I'd still like to see what NellieBly's response would be on the vasectomy question. I could be wrong but I've got a pretty strong feeling that, if the questions were asked at different times and places and by different people, she'd have a completely different response to the vasectomy question than she'd have to the same question about a tubal ligation.
White,Black,Brown or Blue....If your on welfare...Then birth-control is for you...Among a plethera of other reasons...
Wow Papa! onelook.com. That's one heck of a powerful and unimpeachable source. lol!!! That is certainly more credible than my source supporting my point regarding the purpose planned parenthood.
I'd like to meet the man who would voluntarily run out and get a vasectomy. Most men won't even get their dog neutered for fear it will somehow ruin their dog.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
I'd like to meet the man who would voluntarily run out and get a vasectomy. Most men won't even get their dog neutered for fear it will somehow ruin their dog.
Even considering your sexist statement (and attitude), if you buy lunch, I'll be happy for you to meet me.
Did you okay it with your partner first?
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Did you okay it with your partner first?
Negative Nellie.. tsk.. tsk..
I thought it was up to the individual to do what they want with their bodies? I'm pretty sure Pspot consulted with his partner first, but what's good for the goose should be good for the gander right?
Hey, Nellie, you gonna buy me lunch, too?
Doe's Eat Place will be fine. [^]
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Did you okay it with your partner first?
You can be assured that my wife does't feel the least bit threatened by the likes of you. Did you think I was asking you for a date or something? (Should I be a sexist too here and ask why women always assume that, if a man proposes lunch to a women that he's asking her for a date? Nah. I don't want to sound like a bigot by making blanket statements about women. I'll leave blanket statements to you.)
Anyway, it's my body. Shouldn't I be able to take it anywhere I want to without anyone's permission? Or is that a right you reserve to women ONLY?
quote:
Originally posted by snopes
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Did you okay it with your partner first?
Negative Nellie.. tsk.. tsk..
I thought it was up to the individual to do what they want with their bodies? I'm pretty sure Pspot consulted with his partner first, but what's good for the goose should be good for the gander right?
Well, ya kinda beat me to the punch there snopes.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Men have no place in women's reproductive rights. Becoming and being a father or parent is one thing -- telling me how and when I can buy or use birth control or get an abortion is nunya.
****
Birth control just got harder.
First, can we get past this "women should have control over their own bodies" b.s. Government has long been able to tell citizens in this country what it can and cannot do with their bodies. For example, government can involuntarily put a man's body in uniform and send the man's body off to war via the draft, the government can put your body in an orange jumpsuit and send your body to jail if you break the law, and the government can make sure your children's bodies are in school.
Second, the issue surrounding abortion is ultimately about what is legal and illegal in this country, which makes it a gender neutral issue. And by the way, Bush's new family planning czar is not going to make birth control harder. He perhaps will make baby killing harder though. Okay y'all, fire away.
Unless trolls and neocons are birth control methods or ideologies, they don't belong here. Thank you.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8e/Cheers_cliff.jpg/200px-Cheers_cliff.jpg)
While the image of Cliff Clavin might cause some to lose interest in sex, it does not count as a birth control method as far as this post is concered so no need to bring him up.
Thank You.
I may be wrong but I think we may have wandered off topic.
This thread looks like a tennis match, cut it out.
Sorry. Guess we forgot to get our comments pre-approved by the Gestapo.
(http://members.cox.net/foxfarms/gestapo/NaziFlag.jpg)
AMF, TulsaNow. I'm not gonna walk on egg shells for you clowns. And I won't be forced to suffer a fool gladly--not on a message board anyway.
Editor--your right and will do.
Oops. you are right and will do.
The "eggshells" papaspot refers to was the simple rule of no personal attacks. Many posts are moderated for it. In extreme cases people have been removed from the board for it. Others choose to leave because they can't work within the rules.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by snopes
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Did you okay it with your partner first?
Negative Nellie.. tsk.. tsk..
I thought it was up to the individual to do what they want with their bodies? I'm pretty sure Pspot consulted with his partner first, but what's good for the goose should be good for the gander right?
Well, ya kinda beat me to the punch there snopes.
I was being sarcastic -- and was refering to getting permission for your V job not lunch (sorry, really not interested in even meeting for a friendly lunch to compare birth control stories). The likes of me??? What The HELL does that mean? I never threatened anyone.
Ya'll need to calm down on this thread.
Who would have thought the topic of birth control would be so divisive?
Oh...everybody...
I know it's from Operation Rescue, but the first story from their website is exactly why abortion is murder:
http://www.operationrescue.org/
Here is another link:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=49516
Please, Nellie or anyone else out there who thinks like she does...Are these the reproductive rights you are advocating or that demand protection? Are these the reproductive rights that men have no business injecting their opinions on? Can we all agree that the answer to the question of this thread, "Is Birth Control Harmful," is a resounding YES.
If being a neocon means I find this reported event to be abhorrent, evil, immoral, and to say the least illegal, then so be it.
Guido wrote:
Can we all agree that the answer to the question of this thread, "Is Birth Control Harmful," is a resounding YES.
<end clip>
No, I *don't* agree.
Since when are condoms, birth-control pills, vasectomies and the rhythm method harmful?
And using that story to claim "abortion is murder" doesn't fly with the story you cited. That wasn't an abortion that occurred. That was an actual childbirth. In that case, yes, it's murder.
But abortion itself is not murder. You may THINK it's murder. But last I checked, I don't know of any woman who had an abortion who got hauled into court on murder charges. Abortion is not murder in a court of law.
But since you supposedly passed the bar, you ought to know that already, right?
[}:)]
I can read the story now..
There was an armed robbery at a local bank today. Two men entered the bank and pulled out condoms before demanding money. Two people were injured in the ensuing prophylactic firefight but luckily no-one was killed.
Yeah RW, I passed the bar. Thanks for the law lesson, though. Just about as accurate as your opinions about lawyer apprenticeship and internship programs you discussed in another thread.
As for abortion being "murder" or not, this is my opinion and not a legal interpretation of the status of the law.
As for the article, did you even read it? It said that the woman went in for an abortion. Instead of the baby being successfully aborted (and therefore killed) the baby survived (and therefore born alive). The baby was allowed to die subsequent to an abortion. With those facts, what is that your point? Oh, maybe your your point is that the abortion was merely negligently performed and it was the conduct of the abortionist after the failed procedure, separate and apart from the abortion itself, that constituted a criminal act. Wow, that's certainly a relief.
Yes, I read the article.
Like it or not, you have to deal with facts when you're dealing with the law. Not opinions, which you seem to value more.
I noticed you conveniently ignored my question on why you apparently think condoms, birth-control pills, vasectomies and the rhythm method are harmful. What is so harmful about these things?
I ignored your other points because it had nothing to do with the two articles I posted pertaining solely to abortion. Remember, this thread was entitled "Is birth control harmful?" To that question, the answer is yes in light of the article. Will other forms of birth control have the same result as the article? No. However, your examples are methods of conception/pregnancy prevention, not conception/pregnancy termination. Do you not see the difference or is it that you do not care?
And by the way, let me be clear. Life begins at conception. Any person who claims that life begins at some magical point in time other than that moment is splitting hairs because absent some very rare catastrophic event in pregnancy, concenption will ALWAYS result in the growth, develepment, and delivery of a baby. Period. How that life beginning at conception is defined or characterized, or whether that life can survive outside a woman's body or in some testtube is not relevant TO ME, although it means a lot in the law. The one obvious contradiction in law that we are all familiar with, however, is that if a person murders a pregnant woman, in many states that person will be charged with two murders. A woman can kill her own baby and that's not even assault.
Guido, here is your exact original statement:
Can we all agree that the answer to the question of this thread, "Is Birth Control Harmful," is a resounding YES.
<end clip>
You didn't say, "in light of the article I just posted."
So ... are you saying the birth control methods (condoms, the pill, vasectomies, rhythm method) that I cited are harmful, or not? You've been not answering the question.
Are you kidding RW? You could not connect the article I posted which involved the murder of an infant by an abortion provider and my point that birth control is harmful?
Again, as for your examples of birth prevention (the pill, condoms, whatever) and whether they are "harmful", I do not believe these will result in the horrific butchering of an infant like an abortion. As for "harmful" in the overall sense, that is very subjective. If you operate under an assumption that being pregnant is "harmful" as opposed to not being pregnant being unharmful, then I guess birth prevention is by default not harmful.
On the other hand, birth control methods such as the pill and especially the rhythm method have a tendancy to spawn (no pun intended) unsafe sexual activity which can result in increased STDs. So in that sense it is harmful. In addition, as for the pill, there are documented cases, albeit statistically rare, of women suffering strokes, blood clots, and heart attacks. There are also examples of condom and pill failure to prevent pregnancy. As for other forms of birth control and whether they are harmful, say if you want to get into IUDs like the Dalkon Shield, then let's go.
You said "in a sense" that birth control is harmful.
So do you want to ban all birth control?
I do not want to get into a debate over banning all birth control, which is well beyond the scope of the point I was making with the article. One point I will make, however, is that I am vehemently opposed to any tax dollars supporting birth control and especially for Planned Parenthood.
"I do not want to get into a debate" translates into dodging the question.
You've been freely debating stuff here and other subjects on this forum all along. Why are you suddenly getting bashful?
Do you want to ban all birth control or not?
It's not being bashful, I am just super busy and my feeling is this could become a "battle royale."
According to Wikipedia...coitus interruptus is a form of birth control. It has been used for over 2,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus
How is it harmful?
(Do you know what they call people who use this method for birth control?...parents).
I continue to be amazed by how ininsitive men [in a general view] act towards:
1) women's views,
2) the whole birth "control" issue,
3) the issue of abortion.
It's baffling how many people are so against abortion and support war efforts. If they think abortion is killing unborn infants, why do they (those who are anti-abortion and pro-war)support the killing of people (including) children associated with war? (A bit off topic, I agree, but it's puzzling) GW Bush is one of these anti-abortion pro-war idiots (in my view, it's idiotic to be against what they consider killing, and then promote killing by war).
As an outsider, meaning I am not a resident of Oklahoma, I am amused by this thread, but the concept that "Birth Control Is Easy" is so simple, yet the very core meaning illudes some people. It's refreshing to see that there is intelligent life in Tulsa, LOL... (my own experiences in the past year visiting there would prove otherwise).
Art_cat, if you deride the intelligence of Tulsans, it'd be a good idea if you got your house in order.
It's spelled "insensitive," not "ininsitive." You also should have used the word "eludes," not "illudes."
I'm not the best speller on the planet, but if you try to tear down other people's intelligence, don't throw stones in glass houses.
Other than that, I agree with you. [:D]
I also noticed that guido has bailed on this conversation, claiming to be too busy, although apparently not too busy to weigh in on other topics.
Guess it got too hot for him here. [}:)]
RW, would you quit being so ininsitive to me. I am busy. Your inability to understand that fact illudes me. [:D]
Don't worry, we will have our set to on the issue.
Oh, and RW, what exactly do you agree with art_cat? That men are insensitive. That being pro-life and supporting the war on terror is contradictory. That men have no business weighing in on the abortion issue.
The issue of birth control, and whether that is harmful in any form, and abortion, and whether that is harmful is obviously complicated. There are moral and spiritual reasons I have that leads me to the position that pregnancy termination methods such as abortion, RU-486, and any other post-conception method of "birth control" is harmful. It diminishes and destroys life.
Whether use of condoms, the pill, rhythm method, or recyclemichael's injection of coitus interruptus, which do not involve the termination of life but the prevention of conception, is harmful is a much different question. Are we talking about birth control in or out of marriage? Are we talking about educating elementary age children about birth control or making making birth control available to older children/teens? Because if it is the latter, then I certainly believe birth control in any form is harmful. I believe such encourages reckless and destructive behavior by children or teens. Anyway, I am not done with this issue yet.
Here's my question to you RW. Do you agree or disagree with my post below regarding life beginning at conception? I would like to hear your opinion (as well as art_cat if she does not mind reducing herself to the level of speaking to a male Tulsan) on that point.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Art_cat, if you deride the intelligence of Tulsans, it'd be a good idea if you got your house in order.
It's spelled "insensitive," not "ininsitive." You also should have used the word "eludes," not "illudes."
I'm not the best speller on the planet, but if you try to tear down other people's intelligence, don't throw stones in glass houses.
Other than that, I agree with you. [:D]
I also noticed that guido has bailed on this conversation, claiming to be too busy, although apparently not too busy to weigh in on other topics.
Guess it got too hot for him here. [}:)]
mea culpa [ck spelling] i am a good speller, actually, and a poor typist... one excludes the other; the facts remain the same; my typos are not the only ones here, fer sure!
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Oh, and RW, what exactly do you agree with art_cat? That men are insensitive. That being pro-life and supporting the war on terror is contradictory. That men have no business weighing in on the abortion issue.
The issue of birth control, and whether that is harmful in any form, and abortion, and whether that is harmful is obviously complicated. There are moral and spiritual reasons I have that leads me to the position that pregnancy termination methods such as abortion, RU-486, and any other post-conception method of "birth control" is harmful. It diminishes and destroys life.
Whether use of condoms, the pill, rhythm method, or recyclemichael's injection of coitus interruptus, which do not involve the termination of life but the prevention of conception, is harmful is a much different question. Are we talking about birth control in or out of marriage? Are we talking about educating elementary age children about birth control or making making birth control available to older children/teens? Because if it is the latter, then I certainly believe birth control in any form is harmful. I believe such encourages reckless and destructive behavior by children or teens. Anyway, I am not done with this issue yet.
Here's my question to you RW. Do you agree or disagree with my post below regarding life beginning at conception? I would like to hear your opinion (as well as art_cat if she does not mind reducing herself to the level of speaking to a male Tulsan) on that point.
dude, or ma'am, you, like me, have not bothered to take the time to see what gender the other of us is, not that it really matters, but the fact that you presumed that i am a "she" is not good[sexist at least!]. at any rate, birth control is easy and
NOT harmful. "control": are you confused about what that term means? do you feel uncomfortable about allowing other people to be in control of their own birth control rights?
Too many religious zealots [
is the spelling ok here?] here[
the southwest] confuse being "religious" with being "spiritual". Being spiritual only requires "being". Being religious requires following some dogma, right? But to talk about morals is a whole other issue. The topic being: "is birth control harmful?" relies on 4 basic principles:
a) what is meant by "is"
b) what is meant by "birth"
c) what is meant by "control"
d) what is meant by "harmful".
So.... it's really a silly question, as there are so many potential answers to each of these, depending on what your God, god, Goddess, goddess, or whatever dogma, or spiritual base you believe in states what the answers are, yes? yes.
Are you kidding art_cat? Are you accusing me of being sexist? Did you even read your post? Let me help you remember what you wrote: "I continue to be amazed by how ininsitive men [in a general view] act towards: [] women's views"
Oklahoma May Deny Women Affordable Birth Control Because It 'Poisons Their Bodies'http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/22/1627441/oklahoma-birth-control-poison/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/22/1627441/oklahoma-birth-control-poison/?mobile=nc)
QuoteOklahoma already prevents women from using their insurance plans to help cover abortion services, but Republicans aren't stopping there. One state lawmaker wants to continue stripping insurance coverage for reproductive health services, advancing a measure that would allow employers to refuse to cover birth control for any reason — based solely on the fact that one of his constituents believes it "poisons women's bodies."
Under State Sen. Clark Jolley (R)'s measure, "no employer shall be required to provide or pay for any benefit or service related to abortion or contraception through the provision of health insurance to his or her employees."
According to the Tulsa World, Jolley's inspiration for his bill came from one of his male constituents who is morally opposed to birth control, and wanted to find a small group insurance plan for himself and his family that didn't include coverage for those services:
Jolley said the measure is the result of a request from a constituent, Dr. Dominic Pedulla, an Oklahoma City cardiologist who describes himself as a natural family planning medical consultant and women's health researcher. [...]
Women are worse off with contraception because it suppresses and disables who they are, Pedulla said.
"Part of their identity is the potential to be a mother," Pedulla said. "They are being asked to suppress and radically contradict part of their own identity, and if that wasn't bad enough, they are being asked to poison their bodies."
The bill has already cleared a Senate Health committee and now makes it way to Oklahoma's full Senate. It is unlikely that either Jolley and Pedulla themselves rely on insurance coverage for hormonal contraceptive services — but if the measure becomes law, the two men could limit the health insurance options for the nearly two million women who live in Oklahoma.
Of course, contraception does not actually poison women. The FDA approved the first oral birth control pill in 1960, and that type of contraception is so safe that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends making it available without a prescription, as it is in most other countries around the world. Furthermore, considering that over 99 percent of women of reproductive age have used some form of birth control, the Oklahoma women who rely on insurance coverage for their contraception would likely disagree with Pedulla's assertion that it "suppresses and radically contradicts part of their own identity."
In reality, access to affordable birth control is a critical economic issue for women. When women have control over their reproductive choices, it allows them to achieve economic goals like completing their education, becoming financially independent, or keeping a job. But birth control can carry high out-of-pocket costs, and over half of young women say they haven't used their contraceptive method as directed because of cost prohibitions. Nonetheless, Republican lawmakers have repeatedly pushed measures to allow employers to drop coverage for birth control.
Think Progress?? Masters of hyperbole, the Fox of the left. How does Think Progress push obvious op-ed as hard news?
QuoteThe bill has already cleared a Senate Health committee and now makes it way to Oklahoma's full Senate. It is unlikely that either Jolley and Pedulla themselves rely on insurance coverage for hormonal contraceptive services — but if the measure becomes law, the two men could limit the health insurance options for the nearly two million women who live in Oklahoma.
In reality, access to affordable birth control is a critical economic issue for women. When women have control over their reproductive choices, it allows them to achieve economic goals like completing their education, becoming financially independent, or keeping a job. But birth control can carry high out-of-pocket costs, and over half of young women say they haven't used their contraceptive method as directed because of cost prohibitions. Nonetheless, Republican lawmakers have repeatedly pushed measures to allow employers to drop coverage for birth control.
I'd love to see this study referenced where over half of young women say they don't use contraceptives as directed due to cost. They can get cheap BC pills through Planned Parenthood.
Even if the bill passes, that does not put insurance benefits for 2 million Oklahoma women in jeopardy. I suspect the number of employers who would seek out health insurance without BC benefits is very small.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 26, 2013, 10:34:40 AM
Think Progress?? Masters of hyperbole, the Fox of the left. How does Think Progress push obvious op-ed as hard news?
I'd love to see this study referenced where over half of young women say they don't use contraceptives as directed due to cost. They can get cheap BC pills through Planned Parenthood.
Even if the bill passes, that does not put insurance benefits for 2 million Oklahoma women in jeopardy. I suspect the number of employers who would seek out health insurance without BC benefits is very small.
Eh, read what you want. The crazy exists in Oklahoma's senate and it shouldn't.
So will this be the "Barefoot and Pregnant" bill, or the usual, the desires of a very few determine the needs for the masses? ::)
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 26, 2013, 10:54:55 AM
So will this be the "Barefoot and Pregnant" bill, ot the usual desires off a very few determine the needs for the masses? ::)
Desires of one apparently.
Hopefully it will just be ignored in committee.
Maybe they will spend more time figuring out how to make the state run better.
not a precise fit in this thread, but here's news. Arkansas more loony than Oklahoma?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_XGR_ARKANSAS_LEGISLATURE_ABORTION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-06-15-15-16
Arkansas has passed this same basic law before. It cost then state $250000 to defend it, and when they lost they paid $150000 to the attorneys who over turned it. Meanwhile, it did nothing to achieve the stated goal.
Most people would view a repeat as a waste. Surely $400000 could be better spent to help troubled women make better choices as opposed to a failed attempt at trying to force religious convictions upon them.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 06, 2013, 09:14:07 PM
Most people would view a repeat as a waste. Surely $400000 could be better spent to help troubled women make better choices as opposed to a failed attempt at trying to force religious convictions upon them.
Yes, well...not Oklarkansans.