Women need birth control because "they can't control their libido"

[koshergrl]

The yearly cost of religious tax emptions is $71,000,000. Seventy-one BILLIION dollars.

Not all religions have tenets that specify no birth control. In fact, I think there is only one, so only one type of Christian, Catholics, can reasonably protest about this. Hypothetically, every taxpayer in the US can say they are against something their tax dollars are spent on. I am against war. A whole lot of my tax dollars go toward supporting wars. I don't get to say I shouldn't have to pay taxes because of that. No one gets to pick and choose what their taxes go for. As an American, you do get to vote, on specific laws and on the people who represent you. If the vote doesn't go in your favor, too bad. If the representatives you vote for don't do what you want, vote against them in the next election. That's how it works. Everybody knows that, of course, just reminding you. If you are not a Catholic, you have no religious stance to hold against birth control being paid by the State. If it is your personal feelings that are offended, you can vote for the representative who supports your same values. That's all you get to do. You don't get to say you shouldn't have to support something you don't agree with, like war.

Umm. Here's where you expose your limited mental capacity which goes to prove you are making an emotional, hysterical argument.
First, you typed in numerals, 71,000,000...Which is not BILLION....It's MILLION...
Next, religious tax exemptions are part of one the left's favorite pet rights...Separation of Church and State....Once again, you want it both ways.
Now, you will offer those examples of religions that do not 'specify' birth control.....Have at it.
BTW, NO religion is opposed to 'birth control'... It is birth control by artificial means, which is taught by the Church to be in violation of God's law. Even Catholics teach birth control. Ever hear the term "Vatican Roulette"?

"I am against war. A whole lot of my tax dollars go toward supporting wars. I don't get to say I shouldn't have to pay taxes because of that."
I find this tactic quite amusing...
Look, honey it is ingrained into the human species that we are aggressive. We will take advantage of the weak at the slightest opportunity. Some cultures are just more civilized in their approach. That said, peace is assured by the barrel of a gun. Period. A potential aggressor will invariably be deterred by the strong possibility of defeat. When two opponents both believe they are the stronger, conflict is inevitable. This is who we are.
The very fact that war exists is the main reason you and I are not speaking German or Japanese right now. Or for that matter, a subject of the Queen of England...
No one "likes" war. However, it is sometimes necessary for a nation to blow up shit and kill people to protect their people and assets.
"If the vote doesn't go in your favor, too bad. If the representatives you vote for don't do what you want, vote against them in the next election. That's how it works. "
Ah. Good point. Here's your problem. You want elections to ALWAYS go your way. And when the vote does not, you scream "CHEATED!!!!"....

Also this is where activist judges come into play. If the elections don't go the progressive way (think homo marriage, abortion) the federal government via strategically appointed judges, just overrules the will of the people. And when the people object, the leader of the country uses pen and phone in violation of the law to "push through" those actions that the people object to.

Thus are fascist governments established.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Ah. Good point. Here's your problem. You want elections to ALWAYS go your way. And when the vote does not, you scream "CHEATED!!!!"....

Or they sue and shop their case to a sympathetic liberal venue.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Huckabee: Dems say women need government to 'control their libido' - NBC Politics

"If the Democrats want to insult women by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system


What is the matter with you women? Can't keep your legs closed?

This is a very stupid argument for Republicans to make. Huckabee is the LAST person anyone should listen to on female issues, as it was his guest that senator that stated women's bodies can turn off their reproductive system when raped--DA--DUH?

First of all--birth control pills are a prescription only pill--much like Viagra and all of the male enhancement drugs that are required to be paid for by the insurer, and have been for decades now.

Furthermore--the use of birth control pills in women--is NOT only to prevent pregnancy. Many women have to have them to control monthly cycles, otherwise they are miserable. Estrogen which is what birth control pills are--are very good for women's BONES. In fact, I know elderly women well past menopause who's doctor's still prescribe birth control pills to them--just to keep their bones healthy--so they don't end up with brittle bone disease known as Osteoporosis.

So what's the freakin problem? It takes two to tango--and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

What we really need to do is produce a male contraceptive device. Something they must do, because we can't rely on them to take a pill as they are not the ones getting pregnant. Perhaps all men should have a reversable vasectomy, even those, like TK, who never have sex, just in case a miracle happens. All males who are fully matured sexually should be made to have a vasectomy and only get it reversed when they get married. That will help end the war on women.

Actually that makes good sense! From a conservative point of view it will reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies resulting in (a) fewer abortions, and (b) fewer single mothers.

 

[Mojo2]

Huckabee: Dems say women need government to 'control their libido' - NBC Politics

"If the Democrats want to insult women by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system


What is the matter with you women? Can't keep your legs closed?

Okay.

If women want to have sex and not become preggers they have to use birth control or else get an abortion.

If they don't want to use birth control or get an abortion but they also want to have sex they will likely become pregnant.

If they do not want to get pregnant and they do not want to practice birth control or get an abortion the only option remaining, practically speaking, is to control their own libidos.

How on earth could that be offensive to anyone with a brain?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Right, I'm just an idiot. You still forgot to explain how I'm anti women. Please do. This should be good.

Thank you for fessing up to what you are. Whether one is a woman or a man, one can be anti-woman in political and social culture.

You are what you are, but you can begin actual learning about the issues.

You are dodging Rocko's question.

In what way are his remarks anti-woman? I certainly don't find them so.

That the questions were accurately answered demonstrates that you are loony.

Rocco is simply anti-woman.

You guys must be Democratic plants. They could not further their side as well as your disinformation does.

 

[Esmeralda]

The yearly cost of religious tax emptions is $71,000,000. Seventy-one BILLIION dollars.

Not all religions have tenets that specify no birth control. In fact, I think there is only one, so only one type of Christian, Catholics, can reasonably protest about this. Hypothetically, every taxpayer in the US can say they are against something their tax dollars are spent on. I am against war. A whole lot of my tax dollars go toward supporting wars. I don't get to say I shouldn't have to pay taxes because of that. No one gets to pick and choose what their taxes go for. As an American, you do get to vote, on specific laws and on the people who represent you. If the vote doesn't go in your favor, too bad. If the representatives you vote for don't do what you want, vote against them in the next election. That's how it works. Everybody knows that, of course, just reminding you. If you are not a Catholic, you have no religious stance to hold against birth control being paid by the State. If it is your personal feelings that are offended, you can vote for the representative who supports your same values. That's all you get to do. You don't get to say you shouldn't have to support something you don't agree with, like war.

Umm. Here's where you expose your limited mental capacity which goes to prove you are making an emotional, hysterical argument.
First, you typed in numerals, 71,000,000...Which is not BILLION....It's MILLION...
Next, religious tax exemptions are part of one the left's favorite pet rights...Separation of Church and State....Once again, you want it both ways.
Now, you will offer those examples of religions that do not 'specify' birth control.....Have at it.
BTW, NO religion is opposed to 'birth control'... It is birth control by artificial means, which is taught by the Church to be in violation of God's law. Even Catholics teach birth control. Ever hear the term "Vatican Roulette"?

"I am against war. A whole lot of my tax dollars go toward supporting wars. I don't get to say I shouldn't have to pay taxes because of that."
I find this tactic quite amusing...
Look, honey it is ingrained into the human species that we are aggressive. We will take advantage of the weak at the slightest opportunity. Some cultures are just more civilized in their approach. That said, peace is assured by the barrel of a gun. Period. A potential aggressor will invariably be deterred by the strong possibility of defeat. When two opponents both believe they are the stronger, conflict is inevitable. This is who we are.
The very fact that war exists is the main reason you and I are not speaking German or Japanese right now. Or for that matter, a subject of the Queen of England...
No one "likes" war. However, it is sometimes necessary for a nation to blow up shit and kill people to protect their people and assets.
"If the vote doesn't go in your favor, too bad. If the representatives you vote for don't do what you want, vote against them in the next election. That's how it works. "
Ah. Good point. Here's your problem. You want elections to ALWAYS go your way. And when the vote does not, you scream "CHEATED!!!!"....

I'm not your 'honey' or your 'sweetie', so take all that crap pouring out of your warped, self important mind and shove it right back down your throat. Assholes like you are not worth engaging in adult conversation.

And this was a typo.

The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions: $71,000,000,000 The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions: $71,000,000,000

You have proven by your entire post you are unable to think in terms outside your narrow minded conservative view of the world, which is anything you don't personally like or approve. You are unable to percieve the world other than in sterotypes and simple minded visions. You are against anything you have not personally experienced, and against anything you cannot imagine because you have no imagination. People like you are dinosaurs. You expect everyone to think like you, to live like you, to be like you, and yet the idea of doing so would repulse at the deepest level most human beings on Earth. You are the one who is hysterical, sweetie.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do Wendy Davis and Sandra Fluke ring a bell?

Yes, those are the women that conservatives love to bash.



Yeah, sure, as soon as you provide me with the link I've been asking where a Liberal has ever said or thought that women can't control their libido.


Oh sure, it isn't pertinent because you can't back it up. Yeah, provide a link where Libs have ever suggested that taxpayers must pay for abortions, too...you just keep spewing stuff without backing it up. Republicans are the ones that are saying it, so apparently that is what Republicans think of women.

Geez, now show me where I even mentioned your dad.

I can say the same thing to you, so you think my husband is merely married to me to objectify me? That's offensive, TK! See, we can both play that silly game.


Why don't you prove that they do. You want to agree with Huckabee on how Liberals think but you haven't provided a shred of evidence. And, conservatives want to demand vaginal ultrasounds on women that want to have a procedure done that is legal....and you don't think they are the ones that want to regulate women's reproductive choices?




And now you are rambling... Rush Limbaugh and the entire Faux News have trashed Liberal women, so quit trying to make it like liberals do it but conservatives don't.

We don't love to bash them, they bring that on themselves! You asked for examples, I gave you examples.



Impertinent. Request denied. Concession acknowledged.



Don't need to back it up. Simply by you saying that Democrats are "for women" and that Republicans simply want to "screw them over" provides me with all the proof I need. If they were "for women" Mert, they would be defending a woman's right to choose life, as well as abortion. That is what it means to be "Pro Choice." But alas, such a belief doesn't exist in the Democratic Party. You objectify women by thinking her only choice is choosing abortion.




You didn't. So clinched to the saddle on that high horse of yours, you failed to recognize that as an analogy. You make such a broad brush statement as "conservatives want to objectify women" I provided you an example of how you're wrong. You must think the entire Republican party consists of pimps and madams or something. This isn't a game. Not by a long shot.

Why don't you prove that they do. You want to agree with Huckabee on how Liberals think but you haven't provided a shred of evidence. And, conservatives want to demand vaginal ultrasounds on women that want to have a procedure done that is legal....and you don't think they are the ones that want to regulate women's reproductive choices?

I want you to disprove the notion that Democrats think women can't control their libido. Hey, don't let all that taxpayer money going to abortion clinics stop you. Just one question, how is it a "choice" when only one option is being touted over the other? I don't support vaginal ultrasounds, even I have limits. So your stereotype is bunk.

And now you are rambling... Rush Limbaugh and the entire Faux News have trashed Liberal women, so quit trying to make it like liberals do it but conservatives don't.

As far as Rush Limbaugh's comments on Fluke being a slut... I'm reminded of an old time saying "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck!"

Your tu quoque argument is useless. "They did it too!" doesn't absolve your party of any responsibility.

None of the taxpayer funding going to Planned Parenthood pays for abortions. There is a federal law that makes that illegal. All funding for abortions obtained via PP is paid for by private donations. The CNS article is deliberately obfuscating those facts for the purposes of trying to shut down PP which performs vital services for women who would otherwise not have access to them at all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, those are the women that conservatives love to bash.



Yeah, sure, as soon as you provide me with the link I've been asking where a Liberal has ever said or thought that women can't control their libido.


Oh sure, it isn't pertinent because you can't back it up. Yeah, provide a link where Libs have ever suggested that taxpayers must pay for abortions, too...you just keep spewing stuff without backing it up. Republicans are the ones that are saying it, so apparently that is what Republicans think of women.

Geez, now show me where I even mentioned your dad.

I can say the same thing to you, so you think my husband is merely married to me to objectify me? That's offensive, TK! See, we can both play that silly game.


Why don't you prove that they do. You want to agree with Huckabee on how Liberals think but you haven't provided a shred of evidence. And, conservatives want to demand vaginal ultrasounds on women that want to have a procedure done that is legal....and you don't think they are the ones that want to regulate women's reproductive choices?




And now you are rambling... Rush Limbaugh and the entire Faux News have trashed Liberal women, so quit trying to make it like liberals do it but conservatives don't.

We don't love to bash them, they bring that on themselves! You asked for examples, I gave you examples.



Impertinent. Request denied. Concession acknowledged.



Don't need to back it up. Simply by you saying that Democrats are "for women" and that Republicans simply want to "screw them over" provides me with all the proof I need. If they were "for women" Mert, they would be defending a woman's right to choose life, as well as abortion. That is what it means to be "Pro Choice." But alas, such a belief doesn't exist in the Democratic Party. You objectify women by thinking her only choice is choosing abortion.




You didn't. So clinched to the saddle on that high horse of yours, you failed to recognize that as an analogy. You make such a broad brush statement as "conservatives want to objectify women" I provided you an example of how you're wrong. You must think the entire Republican party consists of pimps and madams or something. This isn't a game. Not by a long shot.




I want you to disprove the notion that Democrats think women can't control their libido. Hey, don't let all that taxpayer money going to abortion clinics stop you. Just one question, how is it a "choice" when only one option is being touted over the other? I don't support vaginal ultrasounds, even I have limits. So your stereotype is bunk.

And now you are rambling... Rush Limbaugh and the entire Faux News have trashed Liberal women, so quit trying to make it like liberals do it but conservatives don't.

As far as Rush Limbaugh's comments on Fluke being a slut... I'm reminded of an old time saying "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck!"

Your tu quoque argument is useless. "They did it too!" doesn't absolve your party of any responsibility.

None of the taxpayer funding going to Planned Parenthood pays for abortions. There is a federal law that makes that illegal. All funding for abortions obtained via PP is paid for by private donations. The CNS article is deliberately obfuscating those facts for the purposes of trying to shut down PP which performs vital services for women who would otherwise not have access to them at all.

Apparently our government doesn't care about federal law:

$542 million went to PP in 2012, all provided by your government.

Planned Parenthood receives record amount of taxpayer support | Fox News

$487.4 million in the 09-10 fiscal year, used to conduct 329,445 abortions:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pla...port-got-4874m-tax-money-did-329445-abortions

By the way, under Title X of the Public Health Service Act, PP gets federal funding for family planning, planning information and contraceptives. They've been getting government funding since 1970.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, PP has been getting government money none of which, by federal law, is used for abortion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, PP has been getting government money none of which, by federal law, is used for abortion.

Their report claimed otherwise. You'd have to incredibly stupid to believe that they didn't use ANY of that money for abortion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, that is your interp of their report.

Show us the line item and expenditure for abortions, please.

 

[koshergrl]

This is a very stupid argument for Republicans to make. Huckabee is the LAST person anyone should listen to on female issues, as it was his guest that senator that stated women's bodies can turn off their reproductive system when raped--DA--DUH?

First of all--birth control pills are a prescription only pill--much like Viagra and all of the male enhancement drugs that are required to be paid for by the insurer, and have been for decades now.

Furthermore--the use of birth control pills in women--is NOT only to prevent pregnancy. Many women have to have them to control monthly cycles, otherwise they are miserable. Estrogen which is what birth control pills are--are very good for women's BONES. In fact, I know elderly women well past menopause who's doctor's still prescribe birth control pills to them--just to keep their bones healthy--so they don't end up with brittle bone disease known as Osteoporosis.

So what's the freakin problem? It takes two to tango--and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

What we really need to do is produce a male contraceptive device. Something they must do, because we can't rely on them to take a pill as they are not the ones getting pregnant. Perhaps all men should have a reversable vasectomy, even those, like TK, who never have sex, just in case a miracle happens. All males who are fully matured sexually should be made to have a vasectomy and only get it reversed when they get married. That will help end the war on women.

Actually that makes good sense! From a conservative point of view it will reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies resulting in (a) fewer abortions, and (b) fewer single mothers.

The ultimate in governmental control...mandatory vasectomies.

Forced sterilization.

Love it.

 

[koshergrl]

No, that is your interp of their report.

Show us the line item and expenditure for abortions, please.

“Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast allegedly improperly billed the Texas Medicaid program for services and products that were not rendered, not medically necessary, and were not covered by the Medicaid program"

Planned Parenthood caught falsifying medical records, billing for services not rendered, and using the funds to provide services not covered...i.e., ABORTION.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...hefty-settlement-in-texas-medicaid-fraud-case

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, that is your interp of their report.

Show us the line item and expenditure for abortions, please.

“Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast allegedly improperly billed the Texas Medicaid program for services and products that were not rendered, not medically necessary, and were not covered by the Medicaid program"

Planned Parenthood caught falsifying medical records, billing for services not rendered, and using the funds to provide services not covered...i.e., ABORTION.

t “Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast allegedly

Can you show the line item and expenditures for PP abortions with government funding?

We are talking about PP nationally.

koshergrl, you need to give objective trustworthy sources for your allegations.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, that is your interp of their report.

Show us the line item and expenditure for abortions, please.

ISSUU - 2011-2012 Annual Report by Planned Parenthood Action Fund

 

[Andylusion]

The 300 lb Huckabee has appointed himself an expert on self-control?

lol

Huckabee's eating habits, doesn't cost the tax payers money. I have no problem with anyone doing what they want, so long as they don't impose the cost of their bad habits on the rest of society. One of the reasons I'm against government health care.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, that is your interp of their report.

Show us the line item and expenditure for abortions, please.

ISSUU - 2011-2012 Annual Report by Planned Parenthood Action Fund

I asked for the line item and expenditure. Do not give us the entire report without pointing directly to the proof of your allegation.

Your affirmation? Your proof.

 

[Yurt]

jakestarkey is a fool to believe PP is not using federal funds for abortions.

 

[Yurt]

No, that is your interp of their report.

Show us the line item and expenditure for abortions, please.

ISSUU - 2011-2012 Annual Report by Planned Parenthood Action Fund

I asked for the line item and expenditure. Do not give us the entire report without pointing directly to the proof of your allegation.

Your affirmation? Your proof.

where is your proof i attacked you for defending the north? two faced asshole.

 

[Faun]

The 300 lb Huckabee has appointed himself an expert on self-control?

lol

Huckabee's eating habits, doesn't cost the tax payers money. I have no problem with anyone doing what they want, so long as they don't impose the cost of their bad habits on the rest of society. One of the reasons I'm against government health care.

Healthcare was already subsidized with tax dollars, even before ObamaCare. The expectation is that ObamaCare will lower those costs.