Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke

[rightwinger]

I think that contraceptive drugs have freed women

I grew up in a time when women had 4-6 children. My great grandmother had nine children. Contraception has freed women to have only the children they want, to pursue other vocations than motherhood.

Why can't you do all that without having sex and getting pregnant?

How much of this is more from MEN wanting the sex
and not carrying equal responsibility as the women.

So it's the MEN who want the liberation
from the women taking responsibility for contraception.

Note: contraception still does not prevent the higher risks of
HPV and cancer, that have higher rates in women if their
male partners had multiple partners in the past. So women
are going to carry a higher burden of responsibility than men
even if they don't get pregnant, it is not going to be equal.

You have a 19th century view of sex where it is the primitive sexual urges of men that force the act. Women enjoy sex too. It is part of a normal adult relationship.

Like it or not, women have the primary responsibility for ensuring that contraception is used. If a mistake is made, THEY bear the consequences. They will bear the child and they will bear the responsibility for raising it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

it doesn't matter when you have to take it etc, it doesn't matter that there is a week of placebo pills a month that you take on some, it doesn't matter what 'make or model' suits the woman's body best....the POINT is that you don't just take a pill the day you get laid, you take it for a year period of protection, and implants of it, for even longer....so ITS COST is NOT RELATED TO HOW MANY TIMES YOU SCREW A DAY....screw in a week or screw in a year.....

thus the comment regarding her being a prostitute because of the money spent on birth control pills is just an UNINFORMED and ignorant statement.

it doesn't cost more, the more you screw around.

Funny, the only people in this said that ever said it was are the ones that want it for free.

Rush Limbaugh said it

I bet you can't prove that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, because it is so hard to take your pill first thing when you get up in the morning

Because no 21 year old coed ever sleeps late.

Then you take it right after dinner, or right before you go to bed

It ain't rocket science

Try it sometime, I bet you can't keep it up for more than a week.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, the point is that, unless you can tell me what the fuck the difference is, she lied. Since you just admitted you can't tell me what it is I will take this as a concession on your part.

40% of Georgetown law students are struggling financially doesn't equal we can't afford birth control, but it does mean that extra expenses make that struggle harder, extra expenses like doctors appointments, pap smears, and prescriptions.

Let me get this straight, you are arguing that struggling financially does not mean struggling financially simply because you want to pretend Fluke didn't lie.

 

[rightwinger]

Because no 21 year old coed ever sleeps late.

Then you take it right after dinner, or right before you go to bed

It ain't rocket science

Try it sometime, I bet you can't keep it up for more than a week.

My wife did it for 20 years

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The thing is, they don't care about those details...they simply want to be able to rail against women having pre-marital sex.

I know that mindset.

My thing is this, just like how God gives us each the freedom to choose or reject him, we, as individuals, have the freedom to conduct their lives however they see fit. Whether or not that goes against the will of God is another matter, and the individual will have to answer for their actions at some point and usually face the consequences of their actions before that point as well.

Fine but pls be consistent.
Let people have equal freedom to pay for the health care of those who live by the same policies, so no one is forced to fund costs of a lifestyle choice they disagree with
or perceived being forced to etc.

We wouldn't see as much griping if people didn't feel things were
being forced on them to pay for. Take that out of the equation
and people would be too busy working on and paying for what
they believe are good solutions and policies, they wouldn't have time
to mess with what other people are paying for. They just don't want that on them!

Now you're getting my hackles up Emily.

See, life doesn't work that way.

In government, there's always going to be things you dont like and don't want to pay for.

I certainly didn't like nor want to pay for going to war with Iraq, and yet, here I am in2013 paying for it.

We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.

So what works for God, doesn't necessarily work for government, unless they claim to be a nation under the rules and laws of God, and that is ALL of them. And no matter what many RW fundamental Christians think....that's not the case. Not now or not ever.

The same fellow who used the phrase "City on a hill" wasn't even Christian, barely set foot in a church, so let's stop with the pretenses.

Wait a minute, aren't you one of the people that argued that Obamacare is not a government takeover of health care? If the government has nothing to do with health care despite the existence of Obamacare why are you pointing out that dealing with the government means we have to pay for things we don't want?

You blew your lines.

 

[rightwinger]

Funny, the only people in this said that ever said it was are the ones that want it for free.

Rush Limbaugh said it

I bet you can't prove that.

Read this thread

It is quite interesting

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The thing is, they don't care about those details...they simply want to be able to rail against women having pre-marital sex.

I know that mindset.

My thing is this, just like how God gives us each the freedom to choose or reject him, we, as individuals, have the freedom to conduct their lives however they see fit. Whether or not that goes against the will of God is another matter, and the individual will have to answer for their actions at some point and usually face the consequences of their actions before that point as well.

You know the mindset that insist on arguing against a position no one has?

Yes, you can have a mindset and hold public positions that do not fully reflect that mindset.

The mindset I'm referring to is the conservative Christian mindset that's anti-pre-marital sex. I know it very well.

Only conservative Christians are against premarital sex? Can we bet on that?

 

[Dante]

Rush Limbaugh said it

I bet you can't prove that.

Read this thread

It is quite interesting

Windy gets told this often. It seems to fall on deaf ears.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why can't you do all that without having sex and getting pregnant?

Some of us want to have sex and get pregnant, but on our own terms.

If you want to do it on your terms stop whinging about the fact that other people do not want to be forced to buy insurance that covers it.

 

[emilynghiem]

God, I love Conservatives

The gift that keeps on giving to the Party of Stupid

Don't you think it is equally stupid to claim to be feminist
and yet put up with contraceptive drugs that are unnatural,
have side effects and put the burden on women while men
don't have to answer to any of the responsibility or consequences?

I had a liberal feminist friend shock the life out of a feminist
group by saying to put the burden back on the men. Make them agree to go get vasectomies before they have sex if they don't want kids. And get it reversed later.
And quit putting it all on women, and then judging women for it.

Ah -- you want this:
♬.... ♫
I'll sing you all a song about a wondrous new device
The nation's latest contraceptive plan
That funny little object they call the I U D
Has recently been changed to fit a man

It's the I P D, the I P D
It may not feel too good to you but it's not hurting me
So every time the pain begins to fill your eyes with tears
Remember I put up with it for years

They tested it on whales and they tried it out on mice
They used it in the poorer parts of town
It's the cleverest invention since the automatic lift
Guaranteed to never let you down

It was proven to be safe for the average human male
Though testing showed some minor side-effects
There were two died from infection and six were sterilised
But only ten per cent were too depressed - from

But you know, some people are never satisfied
So scientists are working once again
They've got something even better than the good old I P D
It's called the morning-after pill for men

Final chorus:
It's the pill, it's better than the I P D
It may not be too safe but we'll just have to wait and see
So put away your worries and put away your fears
And remember I put up with it for years

(sorry, not on YouTube)

I think my approach is worse than yours, or my friend's suggestion of vasectomies
(I also heard a feminist say all men should get vasectomies and put sperm in a bank etc)

So crazy why not just go back to the natural ways of having sex with people
you want to have children with, so it won't matter if pregnancy happens or not?

Anyway my suggestion when men push legislation and bans against abortion without considering if the laws are written to penalize, burden, or affect women more than the men, is to ask them why not pass laws making it a "statutory form of rape"
where MEN are held accountable for acts that result in unwanted sex, children
pregnacy or abortion as "relationship abuse"? When the tables are turned, and men consider what if the law were biased toward putting the burden on MEN more than women,
that stirs people up. But it brings out the point that the laws are not equal,
so more needs to be done to address prevention and solutions that do not
penalize or burden women legally or financially more than the men.

NOTE: In general I believe focusing on "relationship abuse" would hold partners equally accountable and subject to counseling until the problems are identified and solved causing the abuse. Even if it can't be legally proven if a woman was raped or if the man or woman is lying over who abused whom, as long as there is a complaint, or an unwanted pregnancy, or a child one or both partners does not want to support, that could be grounds for requiring counseling for relationship abuse, if people FREELY agree to abide by that standard. I don't see how it could be imposed by regulation, but could be adopted per community as with colleges that have a policy of written consent form if couples agree to have sex. If "relationship abuse" is considered against some internal policy agreed to voluntarily by people in a group or community, this would avoid complications of criminal issues or civil liability, and could promote solving and preventing problems by shared responsibility for counseling instead of fighting to put the burden on the other person.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think that contraceptive drugs have freed women

I grew up in a time when women had 4-6 children. My great grandmother had nine children. Contraception has freed women to have only the children they want, to pursue other vocations than motherhood.

Why can't you do all that without having sex and getting pregnant?

How much of this is more from MEN wanting the sex
and not carrying equal responsibility as the women.

So it's the MEN who want the liberation
from the women taking responsibility for contraception.

Note: contraception still does not prevent the higher risks of
HPV and cancer, that have higher rates in women if their
male partners had multiple partners in the past. So women
are going to carry a higher burden of responsibility than men
even if they don't get pregnant, it is not going to be equal.

You have a 19th century view of sex where it is the primitive sexual urges of men that force the act. Women enjoy sex too. It is part of a normal adult relationship.

Like it or not, women have the primary responsibility for ensuring that contraception is used. If a mistake is made, THEY bear the consequences. They will bear the child and they will bear the responsibility for raising it.

You have a mentality where that mixes a distorted version of chivalry where the stronger protect the weaker because of a moral obligation that only exist if we assume that might makes right.

Anything that involves forcing other people to your viewpoint is, by definition, wrong. That means you lose the war even if you win the battle.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then you take it right after dinner, or right before you go to bed

It ain't rocket science

Try it sometime, I bet you can't keep it up for more than a week.

My wife did it for 20 years

Liar.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rush Limbaugh said it

I bet you can't prove that.

Read this thread

It is quite interesting

I have, which is why I know no one opposed to the birth control mandate, even Rush, ever said that birth control is more expensive if you have more sex. Feel free to provide the quote to prove me wrong.

 

[emilynghiem]

You have a 19th century view of sex where it is the primitive sexual urges of men that force the act. Women enjoy sex too. It is part of a normal adult relationship.

Like it or not, women have the primary responsibility for ensuring that contraception is used. If a mistake is made, THEY bear the consequences. They will bear the child and they will bear the responsibility for raising it.

Not what I mean at all.
Let me clarify, that in proportion to the men and women both wanting sex
the responsibility on the women is greater. And YES I will say that there are
more cases of men raping women (and creating unwanted pregnancy or abortion
against their will where it is more the fault of the man and not the woman's choice),
than women raping men, so that is not equal either.

So saying that contraception "liberated" women is unfair because it doesn't really address the issue of why women need to be liberated. It may have created more choices
and reduced the incidents of women limited in freedom; but the same problems that cause women to be treated unequally STILL occur without getting pregnant and having children, if the ATTITUDE toward women hasn't changed. For example, even without having kids and staying at home, there are plenty of stories where women give up their careers to support their husband's because women tend to take the caretaking role in relationships.

This can be changed. Many men take on the role of caretaker, and
men CAN accept equal responsiblity for raising children, not just women as you assume.
Maybe it is you who have an old-fashioned way of framing relations biased this way.
But THAT is the issue, and not just trying to fix it on the outside by contraception.

The only part that women do that men don't is carrying and bearing the child.
Before and after is equal responsibility that either or both parties can share.
So if women have a greater burden physically, it is still the equal personal responsiblity of both men and women NOT to do things that put greater burden on women!

Instead of knowing this, and still doing it, claiming that's just the way it is.

 

[MarcATL]

Now you're getting my hackles up Emily.

See, life doesn't work that way.

In government, there's always going to be things you dont like and don't want to pay for.

I certainly didn't like nor want to pay for going to war with Iraq, and yet, here I am in2013 paying for it.

We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.

So what works for God, doesn't necessarily work for government, unless they claim to be a nation under the rules and laws of God, and that is ALL of them. And no matter what many RW fundamental Christians think....that's not the case. Not now or not ever.

The same fellow who used the phrase "City on a hill" wasn't even Christian, barely set foot in a church, so let's stop with the pretenses.

1. if you believe in separation of church and state, then that's even MORE reason to support separating policies and funding per issue and per party to AVOID imposing
religious bias on dissenting groups. EXACTLY!!!!

2. the govt does not work this way as long as we the people don't ask it to.
The govt used to not have the federal reserve, but people got together and created it.
Ralph Nader pushed the legislation that created OSHA and the Consumer Protections
system we have now. My friends in the historic district where I live wrote federal legislation to convert public housing into a sustainable campus system with integrated health care and social services provided by student interns in an educational program
to break the cycle of poverty and mentor families and communities to become self-reliant.

So we can also push for reform by agreement between parties to pay for their own policies.

Marc wouldn't you LOVE for taxpayers to be paid back for the Iraqi War spending
and use that for health care reform, such as by converting prisons, VA and public housing to provide public services and accessible treatment through cost-effective systems
integrated in medical education to train more doctors, nurses and service providers?

Well, why not ask?
If the Fed is issuing notes and getting interest off debts, why not issue notes against this spending and redirect those funds to things we AGREE to pay for?

Why not reduce federal govt to just the functions and policies that we AGREE should be the role of federal govt, and delegate the rest to states or through parties to manage programs that people have different ways of running and funding.

Why not? Why not localize democracy so people's representation MEANS something
and you do have a direct say in which parties or programs you support and putting
your resources THERE.

I think we'd have more direct participation and better representation that way,
and less conflict trying to bully one party's policies over others, etc. etc.

If the people are the government, why not REWARD taxpayers for taking
responsibility for their own solutions? And delegate different issues or parts of the
budget to different groups that specialize in those areas. Wouldn't parties be more motivated to work together if their input COUNTED and policies were based on agreement?

I like this idea of yours Emily, I really do.

However, this is a total re-working of the system including The Constitution, as it's a different type of representative Government than what we have now.

I don't see this happening anytime ever.

The country is too divided. You have folks that would say that the sky is green because Obama says it's blue. We have war-mongers and peace-niks, we have people who want to kill people for stealing and we have folks who barely want to incarcerate people for killing people. There's too many fractions or factions in our society, as it should be, so we have to govern based on compromised consensus.

It's not perfect, but it works.

You idea sounds pretty good though.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, the point is that, unless you can tell me what the fuck the difference is, she lied. Since you just admitted you can't tell me what it is I will take this as a concession on your part.

40% of Georgetown law students are struggling financially doesn't equal we can't afford birth control, but it does mean that extra expenses make that struggle harder, extra expenses like doctors appointments, pap smears, and prescriptions.

Why not solve the problem with both health care costs AND the need for more service providers if we are going to serve more of the population

by creating or expanding more medical education and health training programs
to provide services through interns and residencies as part of their course credits
(supervised of course) and/or through free or low-cost clinics to pay for their education?

BTW I believe a lot of the extra expenses and complications in medicine could be reduced by promoting more natural healing and preventative helath and quit relying on things pushed for profit by the industry. Some of this is more cost-effective in the longrun, but some stuff is not necessary. I think that needs to be addressed not just in terms of cost but also how much can be simplified and reduced by promoting natural health and healing.

 

[emilynghiem]

Women can never trust men to deal with birth control because men don't get pregnant, and don't have to deal with the consequences of being pregnant and having babies.

Yes, having reliable, safe birth control really changed everything for women, and their families. No longer could employers hold women back on the excuse that you never knew when they would have a baby.

Again why is responsibility being drawn at the point of birth control?
Aren't BOTH people equally responsible for the sex regardless of birth control?

So why have sex with a man who does not accept equal responsibility?
Why not put equal responsibility on him for the sex and pregnancy
and consequences, or refuse to have sex?

Why just the responsibility for birth control?

 

[emilynghiem]

I like this idea of yours Emily, I really do.

However, this is a total re-working of the system including The Constitution, as it's a different type of representative Government than what we have now.

I don't see this happening anytime ever.

The country is too divided. You have folks that would say that the sky is green because Obama says it's blue. We have war-mongers and peace-niks, we have people who want to kill people for stealing and we have folks who barely want to incarcerate people for killing people. There's too many fractions or factions in our society, as it should be, so we have to govern based on compromised consensus.

It's not perfect, but it works.

You idea sounds pretty good though.

Thanks for your open honesty and directness, Marc.
And tolerating opinions even where they disagree with yours.

If you didn't have major reservations about this drastic a change in how we operate, that would mean you are not realistic; but expressing SERIOUS doubt how this could be pursued shows you are reasonable about what can and can't be done. I appreciate that!

I don't think it would require a change in the Constitution to allow people to organize reforms by party, but would be following the darn thing instead of party politics and bias.

The tax rate could be reduced incrementally for example from 25% to 20% to 15%
until the government could operate at 10%.

And anything paid above that amount could be considered a LOAN and directed through parties to invest in the programs that those taxpayers manage through their parties on terms they agree with. so the point is to propose sustainable solutions that would pay back for themselves over time.

So the programs that are optional for federal govt to be carrying and not expressly in the Constitution, such as health care, can be transferred more to states and managed by parties by AGREEMENT. Even within the same state, taxpayers could choose programs by party and not be restricted by majority rule vote.
There is nothing unconstitutional about exercising rights of the people and of the states, or using parties
to organize the leadership, programs and resources to cover their membership base.

Currently things are being pushed through Congress ALREADY by party where there is NOT agreement, so this would be an improvement to what is going on now!

Thanks for being open-minded to this idea.
The main reservation I get from people is "the other party isn't going to do it"
so if each party just focuses on what THEY are willing to take on and do,
then they wouldn't get stalled out worrying about the other party objecting.

I think people would stop griping about what they disagree on, if they want the fed govt
to handle it, and would gladly take on what they want to see managed right.

Thanks, Marc! I hope this idea can be revamped into some working policy
to get parties either on the same page or separate out what are better managed and funded as private or localized programs from what are the fundamental federal responsibilities of govt to manage.

Also the reason people are pushing petty arguments for the sake of disagreement
IS BECAUSE people resent being forced to be under this policy or that representation.
So this disagreement issue would take care of itself by letting people fund their own choices,
and they wouldn't need to make emotional arguments to bully each other down that way!
A lot of it is the symptom of the problem that feeds on itself and escalates the divisions.
But by the same token, by removing that factor the problems also solve themselves and de-escalate
the more we quit threatening to force compromise of people's core principles but respect freedom of choice
consistently. That restore trust and relations so people can contest issues WITHOUT the side personal attacks.

 

[MisterBeale]

We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.

That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children. There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State." The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion. This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.

The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people. Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.

There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them. Most comply with 501c regulations. What does this mean? It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear. However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it? They can't. Find and read the book, "In Caesar's Grip," to fully understand this issue. But you won't find it in any public library or school library. Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.