Why Are Men Dominating the Debate About Birth Control for Women? - Page 5

Journey · 02-19-2012, 03:59 PM

<thinks Berry should receive a gold star and be sent to the head of the class for her answer> ;-).

rockin'robin · 02-19-2012, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Journey

<thinks Berry should receive a gold star and be sent to the head of the class for her answer> ;-).

Agreed!..."She's a He", tho'...

Journey · 02-19-2012, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockin'robin

Agreed!..."She's a He", tho'...

Oops, sorry Berry, mea culpa. :-)

Berry · 02-19-2012, 07:35 PM

kokonut · 02-19-2012, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Journey

re bolded: that was not my conventional expectation, that was yours. You were the one who introduced the "wealth means health" argument and none of what you provided proves that. Oh sure, granted, if we are comparing underdeveloped 'third' world countries to developed nations, yes spending makes a difference. We are looking at the fact that the US outspends all other nations on healthcare (and has one of the highest GDP based on what you provided) but that does not translate to the US having the longest life expectancies nor the healthiest or best cared for citizens. Houston, there is a problem.

Oh and the NYTimes article on preventative care says it is quite possible that the cost of preventative care could equal the cost of present care (as is) but nonetheless, may be a boon to a patient's health. So here again, cost is rather a 'wash' factor but patient health improves. Isn't improved patient healthcare the goal of any healthcare reform?

Call my views simplistic and flawed but they seem to make good common sense based on history and up-to-date information thus far.

You have the expectation that higher spending on health care should reflect longer life-expectancy. The problem is that the U.S. has already met that goal seeing that our life expectancy has been increasing each year. But you neglect to consider other factors on what contribute to higher health
care cost. One obvious reason would be the rising litigation costs (malpractice lawsuits) that have contributed to the high cost of health care in the United States that easily outpace health care inflation.

Quote:

estimated that 10 percent of all health care spending is consumed by medical-malpractice-liability-related defensive medicine and insurance costs-a total sum of $210 billion, or almost one-third the difference between the cost of U.S. health care and that in other developed nations.

Quote:

More comprehensive estimates by the insurance consulting firm Tillinghast Towers-Perrin place the total direct cost of medical-malpractice litigation at $30.4 billion annually—an expense that has grown almost twice as fast as overall tort litigation and over four times as fast as health-care inflation since 1975 (see graph).

Trial Lawyers Inc. | Update: HEALTH HAZARD

Trial Lawyers Inc.

http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/asset...s/update8e.gif

http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwe...sts_trends.pdf

Once again, your view is a simplistic one. You have not considered factors that may affect life expectancy or factors affecting why we have higher health care cost such as not considering the fact we live in a litigious society. Malpractice lawsuits contribute to the increasing cost of health care. A cost that is borne by the consumers who ultimately pay for higher costs with increased premiums.

rolling7 · 02-19-2012, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Journey

Of course someone is paying for it and I acknowledged that when I stated that I "willingly let a minutiae of our tax dollars offer BC options to others in need of it because, in the long run, this benefit to others benefits us and our community." I also don't mind that some of my tax dollars go toward the collective pot for healthcare which helps myself, my family and complete strangers. It is a small price to pay for the returns. I feel the same way when I pay my car or house insurance premiums. I have not made a claim on either of them yet I continue to willingly pay my 'share' year after year. Why? Because, in terms perhaps you better understand, "There but for the grace of God go I". So, we can talk about planning on having sex, being responsible, educating others, paying for your choices but, the fact remains, many who are in need of BC cannot readily access it or afford it (for some of the reasons I have mentioned in an earlier post). My place is not to judge why they are in need, my place is to judge whether I can afford and consent to a few cents or a few dollars each year to help contribute to a better community. I can and I do.

The facts remain, many who are in need of BC cannot readily access out our afford it, so they live by the principle of, "There but for the graces of God go I". They don't even give consideration to postpone sexual intercourse until they can and a great number of people wonder why they should wait since the urge is supreme to logic.
For me, I say if they can't control their urge THEY can pay the consequences, not me. It cost not one red cent for someone to control their urge and plan out their actions.

**Daredevel7** · 02-19-2012, 10:59 PM

I wonder if this issue would be just as controversial if we assume that BC is ONLY for pregnancy prevention, like condoms, spermicide, etc.

I was on BC for two years before I had sex, and believe me, I wasn't on BC "just in case" I pick up some random guy..... Ever since I first got my period, every month would include extreme PMS (including clockwork puking...). After trying different types of prescribed meds, the doc said that the only thing left to try was BC. My mom flat out refused, thinking that BC = rampant sex. When I went to college, I got BC on my own and I got so mad at my mother because they were a godsend and I could have prevented 84 vomits (and other nasty stuff).

Anyway...

My opinion about this issue, well... it's a bit tricky. If we focus only on the "moral" aspect of it, i.e. frame the question as "Should we be paying for other people's "right" to have low risk sex?", the answer is a very obvious no. However, I don't think this is the right way to look at it. I think we should look at it as "How much is it to fund BC? What are the pros and cons? What is the real cost of alternative solutions (or no solution at all i.e. not pay for a damn thing)?"

I would imagine we have enough statistics to show the benefits of supplying "free" conception. (By the way, isn't "free" really the wrong word? Aren't we still technically paying for it? To me, it's like calling Medicare "free".)

Let's assume that "free" conception does make a significant difference in unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and so on. Would this make a difference?

rolling7 · 02-19-2012, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

I wonder if this issue would be just as controversial if we assume that BC is ONLY for pregnancy prevention, like condoms, spermicide, etc.

I was on BC for two years before I had sex, and believe me, I wasn't on BC "just in case" I pick up some random guy..... Ever since I first got my period, every month would include extreme PMS (including clockwork puking...). After trying different types of prescribed meds, the doc said that the only thing left to try was BC. My mom flat out refused, thinking that BC = rampant sex. When I went to college, I got BC on my own and I got so mad at my mother because they were a godsend and I could have prevented 84 vomits (and other nasty stuff).

Anyway...

My opinion about this issue, well... it's a bit tricky. If we focus only on the "moral" aspect of it, i.e. frame the question as "Should we be paying for other people's "right" to have low risk sex?", the answer is a very obvious no. However, I don't think this is the right way to look at it. I think we should look at it as "How much is it to fund BC? What are the pros and cons? What is the real cost of alternative solutions (or no solution at all i.e. not pay for a damn thing)?"

I would imagine we have enough statistics to show the benefits of supplying "free" conception. (By the way, isn't "free" really the wrong word? Aren't we still technically paying for it? To me, it's like calling Medicare "free".)

Let's assume that "free" conception does make a significant difference in unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and so on. Would this make a difference?

If this nation would make all known contraception medicine and devices free to all whom request them, no questions asked, could anyone guarantee those people would use them and use them properly? NO! The reason I know this is because the urge is more powerful than logic. Therefore making them free won't make a dent in unwanted pregnancies, etc.

**TWA** · 02-19-2012, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

If this nation would make all known contraception medicine and devices free to all whom request them, no questions asked, could anyone guarantee those people would use them and use them properly? NO! The reason I know this is because the urge is more powerful than logic. Therefore making them free won't make a dent in unwanted pregnancies, etc.

Most experts, doctors, and women would disagree with you. You are partially correct that making BC completely free won't eliminate unwanted pregnancies. The problem has multiple causes: education on BC use, availability, and cost. But when you peel back the cover and see who is standing in the way of correcting these contributing factors, you'll see it is the same people.

Journey · 02-20-2012, 12:21 AM

"Once again, your view is a simplistic one. You have not considered factors that may affect life expectancy or factors affecting why we have higher health care cost such as not considering the fact we live in a litigious society. Malpractice lawsuits contribute to the increasing cost of health care. A cost that is borne by the consumers who ultimately pay for higher costs with increased premiums."

Sigh, kokonut, you are going all over the place to find ways to call me simplistic in every post. You are not debating with me with an open mind, nor, it appears, even reading half of what I have said. Now you are throwing in the cost of litigation to support the idea that a weathier nation - one with a higher GDP and higher healthcare spending - does not equate with healthier nation (opposing your own conjecture in the first place) because healthcare monies go toward malpractice. Ok, my simple little head is spinning, I give. Clearly you disagree with what I have said or presented, clearly I disagree with what you have said and the directions you take in support. Fair enough. Let's be done and allow this thread to get back on track.

Berry · 02-20-2012, 12:30 AM

Three of my grand daughters got pregnant while on birth control that was supposed to be "Only one in a thousand chances of having a baby while on it."

So I assume they each had sex at least a thousand times.

So I guess if they hadn't had birth control they would have had sex only half a dozen times and had two or three babies.

Seems simple to me. If a person can't afford birth control then they can't afford to raise the child.

So which does our society choose to pay for.

The contraception?

Or the children that are born?

Unless you look at it from the corporate viewpoint. The more children there are the more consumers there are. The more consumers there are the more you can sell. (This strikes me as a typical pyramid scheme that shares the same weakness all pyramid schemes share -- Sooner or later it has to collapse.) Now the idea that society pays to raise the person who will line your pockets with profit sounds like a great idea.

Morality is only an issue if you assume people will not have sex if they do not have birth control. As soon as you realize people are going to have sex whether they have birth control or not the morality issue becomes a straw man.

Journey · 02-20-2012, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

The facts remain, many who are in need of BC cannot readily access out our afford it, so they live by the principle of, "There but for the graces of God go I". They don't even give consideration to postpone sexual intercourse until they can and a great number of people wonder why they should wait since the urge is supreme to logic.
For me, I say if they can't control their urge THEY can pay the consequences, not me. It cost not one red cent for someone to control their urge and plan out their actions.

You are discounting a large number of BC users - I spoke of them earlier and daredevel just shared her own personal account about pill use. Do you really think the whole issue of birth control use (and users) comes down simply irresponsible people who cannot control their sexual urges?

Berry · 02-20-2012, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

The facts remain, many who are in need of BC cannot readily access out our afford it, so they live by the principle of, "There but for the graces of God go I". They don't even give consideration to postpone sexual intercourse until they can and a great number of people wonder why they should wait since the urge is supreme to logic.
For me, I say if they can't control their urge THEY can pay the consequences, not me. It cost not one red cent for someone to control their urge and plan out their actions.

But THEY often don't. MANY of them are teenagers without jobs or prospects of jobs. So society pays for the hospital bill, WIC, AFDC, and the costs of education. Sometimes for foster homes as well.

I think just giving BC out free would be cheaper in the long run and if some people use it for other medical reasons, so what? It would still be cheaper.

**Banjo** · 02-20-2012, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Journey

You are discounting a large number of BC users - I spoke of them earlier and daredevel just shared her own personal account about pill use. Do you really think the whole issue of birth control use (and users) comes down simply irresponsible people who cannot control their sexual urges?

Such a simplistic view they have, whoever wants to be on BC is just a sex crazed woman, it's that simple, isn't it? Eh?

kokonut · 02-20-2012, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Journey

Sigh, kokonut, you are going all over the place to find ways to call me simplistic in every post. You are not debating with me with an open mind, nor, it appears, even reading half of what I have said. Now you are throwing in the cost of litigation to support the idea that a weathier nation - one with a higher GDP and higher healthcare spending - does not equate with healthier nation (opposing your own conjecture in the first place) because healthcare monies go toward malpractice. Ok, my simple little head is spinning, I give. Clearly you disagree with what I have said or presented, clearly I disagree with what you have said and the directions you take in support. Fair enough. Let's be done and allow this thread to get back on track.

I've an open mind, just that I've considered other factors such as litigation, for example, that actually contributed to higher health care costs. Or other contributions that allowed people to live longer in one country such as genetics differences, lifestyle, food they eat, etc, along with better health care, obviously.

Um, it's still the same, wealth means better health. I've not deviated from that. No opposing conjecture here. What I've pointed out is that litigation costs help contribute to higher healthcare spending as one of the few factors influencing it.

**Banjo** · 02-20-2012, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

What I've pointed out is that litigation costs help contribute to higher healthcare spending as one of the few factors influencing it.

How do they contribute to the higher costs of healthcare spending when they have insurance for it?

kokonut · 02-20-2012, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

How do they contribute to the higher costs of healthcare spending when they have insurance for it?

Malpractice lawsuits help contribute to higher premiums.

Berry · 02-20-2012, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Malpractice lawsuits help contribute to higher premiums.

Higher premiums plus doctors will take the "safe" procedure that is often more expensive (In the long run, if not immediately) but has been proven in the past to be the most defensible if there is a suit.

The doctors in the ER wanted to give my late wife more prednisone, even though they knew it might worsen her over all condition (she was suffering from prednisone poisoning -- she had been taking too much for too long). Why? "Because that is the standard practice in cases such as this" and thus I would not be able to sue effectively so long as they followed standard practice.

I blew up and demanded, "You mean you went through high school, then college, then medical school -- Twenty years of schooling to give me the same reasoning my second grader gave me? You are going to do it because everyone else is doing it?"

I was told I had the right to calm down or go to jail for interfering with the doctor's right to risk the life of my wife.

In the end I managed to get them to agree not to do anything until her personal physician arrived.

But even that was a risk for them to take. If they deviated from standard procedure and did what was best for my wife, give her large doses of antibiotics (which her personal doctor did) instead of prednisone, and something went wrong -- I could have sued them effectively even though it was not their fault.

There are times when the doctor is on the horns of a horrible dilemma: Do everything they can to save the patient and risk their career or risk the patient and play safe with their career.

Sort of a lawsuit roulette, if you will.

rolling7 · 02-20-2012, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWriteAlex

Most experts, doctors, and women would disagree with you. You are partially correct that making BC completely free won't eliminate unwanted pregnancies. The problem has multiple causes: education on BC use, availability, and cost. But when you peel back the cover and see who is standing in the way of correcting these contributing factors, you'll see it is the same people.

While I do agree with your post, logicdoes plays a part in this also. These same experts will tell you that since BC has become widely avaliable more sexual activities take place....logic says: more sex = more problems.

**TWA** · 02-20-2012, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

While I do agree with your post, logicdoes plays a part in this also. These same experts will tell you that since BC has become widely avaliable more sexual activities take place....logic says: more sex = more problems.

I won't say you're incorrect in this assumption (even though there is not data to back your claim), but at the same time, I do think you are overestimating the influence free/cheap birth control will have on promiscuity. It might be true that sex will go up, but the fact is people are are going to have sex--lots and lots of sex (which studies have shown DOES in fact create more promiscuity)--no matter what. It doesn't matter what religion, what socio-economic class, etc. Sexual attraction and urge is innate. It's biology. Rather than putting taboos on sexual activity, people should be educated about it: the risks (both physical and emotional), how to procure and use birth control, but most importantly, people need to have access to it. If something is out-of-reach financially, it is not accessible. From a purely logical and health safety point of view, nothing makes more sense in this country than to make birth control 100% free to all women.

Journey · 02-20-2012, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

While I do agree with your post, logicdoes plays a part in this also. These same experts will tell you that since BC has become widely avaliable more sexual activities take place....logic says: more sex = more problems.

I would be interested in any data supporting the idea that available birth control = more sexual activity. According the Planned Parenthood, "Many studies have proved the opposite. The latest was recently published three year ago in The American Journal of Public Health. It showed that kids in schools that distributed condoms were less likely to have sexual intercourse than kids at schools that don't distribute condoms.The study also suggests that kids in high schools with condom programs were more likely to use condoms. Young people in other high schools were more likely to use other kinds of birth control. But only latex and female condoms reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections. The fact is that kids in schools that distribute condoms are less likely to have sexual intercourse and are less likely to get a sexually transmitted infection."

If highly hormonely-charged, immature kids are not increasing their sexual activities when birth control is available, one would think that same result would translate to an older population as well.

rolling7 · 02-20-2012, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Journey

I would be interested in any data supporting the idea that available birth control = more sexual activity. According the Planned Parenthood, "Many studies have proved the opposite. The latest was recently published three year ago in The American Journal of Public Health. It showed that kids in schools that distributed condoms were less likely to have sexual intercourse than kids at schools that don't distribute condoms.The study also suggests that kids in high schools with condom programs were more likely to use condoms. Young people in other high schools were more likely to use other kinds of birth control. But only latex and female condoms reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections. The fact is that kids in schools that distribute condoms are less likely to have sexual intercourse and are less likely to get a sexually transmitted infection."

If highly hormonely-charged, immature kids are not increasing their sexual activities when birth control is available, one would think that same result would translate to an older population as well.

There is no need for data...only logic. If you were to go back in time(i.e. 50s/60s) you would find a lot less kids having sex as there was not much contraceptives avaliable. Also there were far fewer kids having kids.
Also you can look at the fact that kids are having intercourse and other sexual activities far earlier in their life today then back then. Although I do not feel that contraceptives play a part into this earlier beginning age, they do in such a way that sex is pervasive (i.e. Monkey see, Monkey do) which comes from the abundance of contraceptives.

Logic would also say that 100% free conctraceptives would reduce much of the unwanted consequencies but again logic would say "100% free" would have to be fair and equally applied (i.e. 100% free hearing aids for all deaf). Where does it end where society provides all the conveniences for those who refuse to take responsibilities of and for themselves?

DeafCaroline · 02-20-2012, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

There is no need for data...only logic. If you were to go back in time(i.e. 50s/60s) you would find a lot less kids having sex as there was not much contraceptives avaliable. Also there were far fewer kids having kids.
Also you can look at the fact that kids are having intercourse and other sexual activities far earlier in their life today then back then. Although I do not feel that contraceptives play a part into this earlier beginning age, they do in such a way that sex is pervasive (i.e. Monkey see, Monkey do) which comes from the abundance of contraceptives.

Logic would also say that 100% free conctraceptives would reduce much of the unwanted consequencies but again logic would say "100% free" would have to be fair and equally applied (i.e. 100% free hearing aids for all deaf). Where does it end where society provides all the conveniences for those who refuse to take responsibilities of and for themselves?

Using your logic that more contraceptives means more pregnancies the teen pregnancy rate in Netherlands would be at 100%.

You're so way off and out of touch.

rolling7 · 02-20-2012, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeafCaroline

Using your logic that more contraceptives means more pregnancies the teen pregnancy rate in Netherlands would be at 100%.

You're so way off and out of touch.

Go back to the '50s and '60s and find the rates of the number of teen pregnancies and compare those numbers of today's. Allowing for population growth, today's teens have way more %-wise.

apples/oranges
Netherlands/America
two different standards of living, so no comparison

DeafCaroline · 02-20-2012, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Go back to the '50s and '60s and find the rates of the number of teen pregnancies and compare those numbers of today's. Allowing for population growth, today's teens have way more %-wise.

apples/oranges
Netherlands/America
two different standards of living, so no comparison

forget it. you are making no sense. as usual.

Journey · 02-20-2012, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

There is no need for data...only logic. If you were to go back in time(i.e. 50s/60s) you would find a lot less kids having sex as there was not much contraceptives avaliable. Also there were far fewer kids having kids.
Also you can look at the fact that kids are having intercourse and other sexual activities far earlier in their life today then back then. Although I do not feel that contraceptives play a part into this earlier beginning age, they do in such a way that sex is pervasive (i.e. Monkey see, Monkey do) which comes from the abundance of contraceptives.

Logic would also say that 100% free conctraceptives would reduce much of the unwanted consequencies but again logic would say "100% free" would have to be fair and equally applied (i.e. 100% free hearing aids for all deaf). Where does it end where society provides all the conveniences for those who refuse to take responsibilities of and for themselves?

No need to data/facts, only your 'logic'?

As for your idea that kids in the 50's and 60s were having less sex and there were fewer pregnancies - have you factored in the fact that teen sex and teen pregnancies were largely under-reported. Sex was not openly discussed, unwanted or unexpected pregnancies were dealt with in 'private homes for unwed mothers' or 'back alley abortions'? The sexual revolution was not so much about the freedom to have more sex, it was about the freedom to let it be known that sex was happening.

**TWA** · 02-20-2012, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Journey

No need to data/facts, only your 'logic'?

As for your idea that kids in the 50's and 60s were having less sex and there were fewer pregnancies - have you factored in the fact that teen sex and teen pregnancies were largely under-reported. Sex was not openly discussed, unwanted or unexpected pregnancies were dealt with in 'private homes for unwed mothers' or 'back alley abortions'? The sexual revolution was not so much about the freedom to have more sex, it was about the freedom to let it be known that sex was happening.

Bingo. This post 100%.

Not a whole lot has changed, really, in terms of teen pregnancies, etc. In fact, I would guess that if we knew the real numbers (as Journey correctly points out, teen pregnancies were not really recorded nor discussed in the 50s 60s), we'd probably see a higher rate of promiscuity back then, and we'd probably see a lot more instances of sexual coercion, harassment, and rape against females (all of which was hardly ever reported back then).

rolling7 · 02-20-2012, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWriteAlex

Bingo. This post 100%.

Not a whole lot has changed, really, in terms of teen pregnancies, etc. In fact, I would guess that if we knew the real numbers (as Journey correctly points out, teen pregnancies were not really recorded nor discussed in the 50s 60s), we'd probably see a higher rate of promiscuity back then, and we'd probably see a lot more instances of sexual coercion, harassment, and rape against females (all of which was hardly ever reported back then).

A lot has changed. As you posted, Journey has not been able to post a rate of pregnancies for the '50s and '60s but I lived back then and I know what the kids thought. We did not dare think about having sex (although the urge was there) until we were out of our parents home. That was the prevailing attitude back then. Parents did instruct their own kids in sex education, as oppose to sex education in schools today. Parents did tell their kids NOT to have sex, as oppose to parents today saying: "Use protection".

Perhaps you have not heard that Houston is #1 when it comes to sexual slavery (a new word for sexual coercion) whereas back in the days they had it but just not minors as oppose to the many, many minors being sex slaves today.

Harassment! That is a joke back in the days. I had plenty of buddies who would beat your butt for harassment of their sister.

Rape against females! The numbers have been and always wil be under-reported, so this is one issue that is lose/lose in any debate.

Journey · 02-20-2012, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

A lot has changed. As you posted, Journey has not been able to post a rate of pregnancies for the '50s and '60s but I lived back then and I know what the kids thought. We did not dare think about having sex (although the urge was there) until we were out of our parents home. That was the prevailing attitude back then. Parents did instruct their own kids in sex education, as oppose to sex education in schools today. Parents did tell their kids NOT to have sex, as oppose to parents today saying: "Use protection".

Perhaps you have not heard that Houston is #1 when it comes to sexual slavery (a new word for sexual coercion) whereas back in the days they had it but just not minors as oppose to the many, many minors being sex slaves today.

Harassment! That is a joke back in the days. I had plenty of buddies who would beat your butt for harassment of their sister.

Rape against females! The numbers have been and always wil be under-reported, so this is one issue that is lose/lose in any debate.

An idyllic way of life - teens and unmarried adults following their parents instructions not to have sex - unfortunately not a reality for so many, then or now. Your own personal circumstance should not stand in the way of you understanding and accepting the facts of sexual activity amongst the young and the unmarried. Perhaps this article will help give you new insight to what really was going on in backseats, parks, dorms and homes where the parents were out for the day or evening. Extracts - "Silent " Sexual Revolution Began In The 1940's and '50s

rolling7 · 02-20-2012, 07:20 PM

I have long said that mankind can NOT use right/wrong...legal/illegal...moral/immoral...good/bad
as a standard because these are always changing with the times
Nevertheless, personal accountability is supreme, other than Mother Nature
because what is natural never, ever changes.

So your link does nothing to change my mind, it only re-enforces the prevailing attitude that mankind controls nature, whereas that is totally false.
Mankind wants to think it can not control the consequences of sexual activities but only Mother Nature is in control, always has been and always will be.

02-19-2012, 07:35 PM	#124 (permalink)
Berry Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Oroville, Ca. Posts: 2,024	__________________ Free Jillio! Living life in the sandbox.

02-20-2012, 12:30 AM	#131 (permalink)
Berry Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Oroville, Ca. Posts: 2,024	Three of my grand daughters got pregnant while on birth control that was supposed to be "Only one in a thousand chances of having a baby while on it." So I assume they each had sex at least a thousand times. So I guess if they hadn't had birth control they would have had sex only half a dozen times and had two or three babies. Seems simple to me. If a person can't afford birth control then they can't afford to raise the child. So which does our society choose to pay for. The contraception? Or the children that are born? Unless you look at it from the corporate viewpoint. The more children there are the more consumers there are. The more consumers there are the more you can sell. (This strikes me as a typical pyramid scheme that shares the same weakness all pyramid schemes share -- Sooner or later it has to collapse.) Now the idea that society pays to raise the person who will line your pockets with profit sounds like a great idea. Morality is only an issue if you assume people will not have sex if they do not have birth control. As soon as you realize people are going to have sex whether they have birth control or not the morality issue becomes a straw man. __________________ Free Jillio! Living life in the sandbox.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-19-2012, 03:59 PM	#121 (permalink)
Journey Registered User Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 981	<thinks Berry should receive a gold star and be sent to the head of the class for her answer> ;-).

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

02-19-2012, 10:59 PM	#127 (permalink)
Daredevel7 Adrenaline Junky Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 4,341	I wonder if this issue would be just as controversial if we assume that BC is ONLY for pregnancy prevention, like condoms, spermicide, etc. I was on BC for two years before I had sex, and believe me, I wasn't on BC "just in case" I pick up some random guy..... Ever since I first got my period, every month would include extreme PMS (including clockwork puking...). After trying different types of prescribed meds, the doc said that the only thing left to try was BC. My mom flat out refused, thinking that BC = rampant sex. When I went to college, I got BC on my own and I got so mad at my mother because they were a godsend and I could have prevented 84 vomits (and other nasty stuff). Anyway... My opinion about this issue, well... it's a bit tricky. If we focus only on the "moral" aspect of it, i.e. frame the question as "Should we be paying for other people's "right" to have low risk sex?", the answer is a very obvious no. However, I don't think this is the right way to look at it. I think we should look at it as "How much is it to fund BC? What are the pros and cons? What is the real cost of alternative solutions (or no solution at all i.e. not pay for a damn thing)?" I would imagine we have enough statistics to show the benefits of supplying "free" conception. (By the way, isn't "free" really the wrong word? Aren't we still technically paying for it? To me, it's like calling Medicare "free".) Let's assume that "free" conception does make a significant difference in unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and so on. Would this make a difference?

02-20-2012, 12:21 AM	#130 (permalink)
Journey Registered User Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 981	"Once again, your view is a simplistic one. You have not considered factors that may affect life expectancy or factors affecting why we have higher health care cost such as not considering the fact we live in a litigious society. Malpractice lawsuits contribute to the increasing cost of health care. A cost that is borne by the consumers who ultimately pay for higher costs with increased premiums." Sigh, kokonut, you are going all over the place to find ways to call me simplistic in every post. You are not debating with me with an open mind, nor, it appears, even reading half of what I have said. Now you are throwing in the cost of litigation to support the idea that a weathier nation - one with a higher GDP and higher healthcare spending - does not equate with healthier nation (opposing your own conjecture in the first place) because healthcare monies go toward malpractice. Ok, my simple little head is spinning, I give. Clearly you disagree with what I have said or presented, clearly I disagree with what you have said and the directions you take in support. Fair enough. Let's be done and allow this thread to get back on track.

02-20-2012, 07:20 PM	#150 (permalink)
rolling7 Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,340	I have long said that mankind can NOT use right/wrong...legal/illegal...moral/immoral...good/bad as a standard because these are always changing with the times Nevertheless, personal accountability is supreme, other than Mother Nature because what is natural never, ever changes. So your link does nothing to change my mind, it only re-enforces the prevailing attitude that mankind controls nature, whereas that is totally false. Mankind wants to think it can not control the consequences of sexual activities but only Mother Nature is in control, always has been and always will be.