What is the conservative objection to birth control?

[gabosaurus]

I don't understand this one at all. Conservatives object to women having kids they can't provide for. They object to abortion. Now they object to women who don't want to get pregnant. What is most hypocritical is that the vast majority of those who object to birth control are likely using it within their family.
Birth control is preventative medicine. Should women who don't want to get pregnant just decide to stop having sex? I am guessing guys would really like that? :rolleyes:
Health care plans provide for other medication. Why should they object to birth control?

[Little-Acorn]

Now they object to women who don't want to get pregnant.

Pretty typical gabby thread. Invent something conservatives didn't say, pretend they said it anyway, and then bash them for it.

(yawn)

[aboutime]

I don't understand this one at all. Conservatives object to women having kids they can't provide for. They object to abortion. Now they object to women who don't want to get pregnant. What is most hypocritical is that the vast majority of those who object to birth control are likely using it within their family.
Birth control is preventative medicine. Should women who don't want to get pregnant just decide to stop having sex? I am guessing guys would really like that? :rolleyes:
Health care plans provide for other medication. Why should they object to birth control?



Maybe you'll understand this gabby. As a Conservative. I do not object to abortion. I would never have objected to yours. As for labeling everyone as mentally unstable as you obviously are. You are the example the rest of us need to fully support ROE V. WADE.
Any other questions?
And you brag about being so much more superior, and intelligent than the rest of us?
Nice joke.

[logroller]

I don't understand this one at all. Conservatives object to women having kids they can't provide for. They object to abortion. Now they object to women who don't want to get pregnant. What is most hypocritical is that the vast majority of those who object to birth control are likely using it within their family.
Birth control is preventative medicine. Should women who don't want to get pregnant just decide to stop having sex? I am guessing guys would really like that? :rolleyes:
Health care plans provide for other medication. Why should they object to birth control?
I think its because its viewed as something that can be used/abused to undermine personal responsibility and/or promote non-virtuous activity. Same way many would object to "other medications" such as cannibis for PTSD or wine for reducing blood pressure. I'm not saying I agree; quite frankly I'm against an employer making health insurance decisions; but why not prescribe a hand jibber for stress reduction while we're at it? :laugh: Just sayin

[Voted4Reagan]

I don't understand this one at all. Conservatives object to women having kids they can't provide for. They object to abortion. Now they object to women who don't want to get pregnant. What is most hypocritical is that the vast majority of those who object to birth control are likely using it within their family.
Birth control is preventative medicine. Should women who don't want to get pregnant just decide to stop having sex? I am guessing guys would really like that? :rolleyes:
Health care plans provide for other medication. Why should they object to birth control?

None... your parents should have used it more often

[avatar4321]

Forcing other people to pay for it.

[gabosaurus]

Forcing other people to pay for it.

So you think everyone should have to pay for all their medications? There are some (like myself) who have to take several medications everyday. Adding up to hundreds per month. How do people on limited incomes afford this?

[revelarts]

So you think everyone should have to pay for all their medications? There are some (like myself) who have to take several medications everyday. Adding up to hundreds per month. How do people on limited incomes afford this?
hundreds a month for birth control?! what kind of condon... I mean.. well... if they use that much they need to be spade or neutered
AND
there are other forms of birth control that are free. 1 called abstinence. various form of sexual encounter don't have the birth hazard.. just saying.
Why should someone else PAY for others loose or "free" sexual behavior?

It like an achoholic being pissed off that the community doesn't want to pay for his cab fare home every night when the idiot can take the bus with 1/3 the cost of one drink or stay home and drink or STOP DRINKING TO THE POINT WHERE HE'S DRUNK OFF HIS ARSE.

Self control is a virtue, asking people to be responsible for their actions is not a moral offense Gab.
Enabling and encouraging irresponsible behavior is not a kindness.

[gabosaurus]

there are other forms of birth control that are free. 1 called abstinence.

So you think all women not ready or willing to have kids should abstain from sex? I think your answer is going to be really unpopular with men. :cool:
Let's say you get married and decide not to have kids for a while. Would you approve of your wife refusing you for a couple of years?

[aboutime]

So you think all women not ready or willing to have kids should abstain from sex? I think your answer is going to be really unpopular with men. :cool:
Let's say you get married and decide not to have kids for a while. Would you approve of your wife refusing you for a couple of years?


Unlike you gabby? If today's young, and older women are truly respectable, responsible, and morally centered. There would be no reason for someone like you to even BOTHER asking such questions.

That old story about Holding an Aspirin between one's knee's as birth control....probably would still work today if...there wasn't so much pressure "NOT" to be the Last Virgin on the block.

[revelarts]

So you think all women not ready or willing to have kids should abstain from sex? I think your answer is going to be really unpopular with men. :cool:
Let's say you get married and decide not to have kids for a while. Would you approve of your wife refusing you for a couple of years?

Don't they sell condoms where you live? not that expensive. And why'd you cut off the rest of my reply? answers you question before you ask.

and uhh btw... when has men being unhappy been a big issue with some women?:poke:

[fj1200]

Health care plans provide for other medication. Why should they object to birth control?

I would disagree that birth control is medication per se. And also that we need to make everything subject to reimbursement as insurance should be for unplanned events and not treating insurance as a health care payment plan. But other than that you've completely misframed the discussion and came out of the gate with a straw man. Good on ya.

A little Aussie type lingo to make you feel as though you're still on vacation.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't understand this one at all. Conservatives object to women having kids they can't provide for. They object to abortion. Now they object to women who don't want to get pregnant. What is most hypocritical is that the vast majority of those who object to birth control are likely using it within their family.
Birth control is preventative medicine. Should women who don't want to get pregnant just decide to stop having sex? I am guessing guys would really like that? :rolleyes:
Health care plans provide for other medication. Why should they object to birth control? I say buy your own damn birth control or tie a damn knot in it!! Who knew condoms were medicine? Strange how now suddenly its so damn important to for all we working people to pay for more sex for the so-called poor people! These poor people with free housing, free food, free money(government checks) and free healthcare!! What you people want is government supported irresponsibility . That way those dependent on big government keep voting Dem for free stuff. some DAY THIS SANTA CLAUS RIDE WILL HAVE TO COME TO AN END. What's your plan when you libs run out of --other people's money? Are you going to give up all your money? That's what the current socialist agenda preaches. And of course only the government big shots get all the goodies, just like in Russia, China and other socialist states. The masses live like damn slaves while the controlling members of the State live like kings. A great plan until the day the masses finally turn on and murder all the slave masters. No utopias ever created , just a vicious cycle of murder, enslavement and corruption. No thanks, I plan on dying a free American one way or another! --Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

I don't understand this one at all. Conservatives object to women having kids they can't provide for. They object to abortion. Now they object to women who don't want to get pregnant. What is most hypocritical is that the vast majority of those who object to birth control are likely using it within their family.
Birth control is preventative medicine. Should women who don't want to get pregnant just decide to stop having sex? I am guessing guys would really like that? :rolleyes:
Health care plans provide for other medication. Why should they object to birth control?

There isn't a conservative objection to birth control. There's a catholic objection to birth control, but not a conservative one.

Birth control is not "medicine", it is specifically used to prevent the body from functioning normally.

However, you're not really having a discussion about any of that, you're just slapping everyone in a room with the broadest strokes possible. This is about the conservative objection to religious institutions being directly forced to pay for a luxury item that is against their beliefs. Condoms are sold pretty much everywhere in America at this point, and are incredibly effective at preventing both pregnancy and STDs.

If you are having so much sex, so frequently, that you cannot afford condoms, then you need to seek therapy.

[DragonStryk72]

So you think everyone should have to pay for all their medications? There are some (like myself) who have to take several medications everyday. Adding up to hundreds per month. How do people on limited incomes afford this?

Again, not what is being said, though you are just basically troll baiting everyone as usual. Y'know, you seemed to be getting better for a bit there.

How are people going through hundreds of condoms per month? I mean, you'd have to be putting up numbers that would shame professional hookers to match those numbers.


So you think all women not ready or willing to have kids should abstain from sex? I think your answer is going to be really unpopular with men. :cool:
Let's say you get married and decide not to have kids for a while. Would you approve of your wife refusing you for a couple of years?

Here's one: go buy a pack of condoms. Boom, you're set for at least one night, at about a buck a piece.

I will say this again: Birth control is not medicine. It exists purely and solely to stop a natural, healthy process of the body from operating. The objection from conservatives is not against BC as a whole, as most of us use a variety of it, but against the government forcing religious organizations to pay for it.

[revelarts]

And Planned unParenthood gives out condoms for FREE,
but i think they might on give out cheap versions or be putting pin holes in them to increase the money making side of the biz, abortions

[jimnyc]

I don't understand this one at all. Conservatives object to women having kids they can't provide for. They object to abortion. Now they object to women who don't want to get pregnant. What is most hypocritical is that the vast majority of those who object to birth control are likely using it within their family.
Birth control is preventative medicine. Should women who don't want to get pregnant just decide to stop having sex? I am guessing guys would really like that? :rolleyes:
Health care plans provide for other medication. Why should they object to birth control?

As others have stated, it's the demands to have others pay, and the inability of some dummies to use self restraint and/or condoms. But what creates such problems? Look here:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44521-Lack-of-personal-responsibility-remains-rampant

[aboutime]

As others have stated, it's the demands to have others pay, and the inability of some dummies to use self restraint and/or condoms. But what creates such problems? Look here:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44521-Lack-of-personal-responsibility-remains-rampant



jimnyc. This is a late Christmas gift for gabby.....http://icansayit.com/images/condomus.jpg

[Trigg]

I don't understand this one at all. Conservatives object to women having kids they can't provide for. They object to abortion. Now they object to women who don't want to get pregnant. What is most hypocritical is that the vast majority of those who object to birth control are likely using it within their family.
Birth control is preventative medicine. Should women who don't want to get pregnant just decide to stop having sex? I am guessing guys would really like that? :rolleyes:
Health care plans provide for other medication. Why should they object to birth control?

I have no problem with it, my medical insurance covers contraceptives. I would have a problem if I was required to pay for abortion or morning after pill insurance. I think both are morally wrong.

If Catholic or other religious organizations don't want to provide birth control based on religious reasons they shouldn't be forced to provide it now.

[avatar4321]

So you think everyone should have to pay for all their medications? There are some (like myself) who have to take several medications everyday. Adding up to hundreds per month. How do people on limited incomes afford this?

Didn't you start another thread decrying the lack of personal responsibility in this country?

Why then are you here trying to make every excuse why we should not be responsible for our own sex lives?

[avatar4321]

So you think all women not ready or willing to have kids should abstain from sex? I think your answer is going to be really unpopular with men.

Let's say you get married and decide not to have kids for a while. Would you approve of your wife refusing you for a couple of years?

Yes. Women who are not ready or willing to have children should abstain from sex. Men who are not ready or willing to have children should likewise abstain from sex.

If you truly want to have sex, there is plenty of ways you can use protection without forcing other people to pay for it. Condoms really don't cost that much. Alot of birth control doesnt as well.

[aboutime]

Bottom line on this question is. Why should younger, males, and senior male, and females be FORCED to pay for ACA (Obamacare) birth control, pregnancy, abortion, and assorted other USELESS devices when they will no longer, or never need such protections????

The objection IS NOT for birth control.., but the expense, and costs of birth control, and abortions placed on the shoulders of Americans across the board.

But then again. Liberals must never use EXACT facts to discuss this. So, they intentionally toss stuff out...like Mud on a Wall...hoping it will stick...the INFORMATIONALLY CHALLENGED won't notice.

[logroller]

To what degree should an employer have a say in what should be included in coverage?
There's an abundance of considerations, eg. fiscal, ethical etc.
i certainly can understand the fiscal argument; employers pay atleast the lion's share of insurance costs. But i believe the crux of the disagreement is on the ethical front-- that birth control, to varying degrees alters a natural course and this is considered by many to breach an ethical line.
But then, should fertility treatments be covered? What about Viagra for impotence-- isn't it natural to lose virility/potency? or propecia-- isn't hair loss natural?
To what extent is restoring natural phenomena (conception, virility, potency, hair growth) NOT, in actuality altering nature the same way birth control does. If its ethical from a medical standpoint, and, suffice to say such treatments aren't medically necessary (it's not a life or death matter), then is any of it really an issue that employer health insurance should cover at all-- doesn't it infringe upon the personal responsibility of the beneficiary?

[fj1200]

To what degree should an employer have a say in what should be included in coverage?

Are they paying the bill?

[Arbo]

I don't understand this one at all. Conservatives object to women having kids they can't provide for. They object to abortion. Now they object to women who don't want to get pregnant. What is most hypocritical is that the vast majority of those who object to birth control are likely using it within their family.
Birth control is preventative medicine. Should women who don't want to get pregnant just decide to stop having sex? I am guessing guys would really like that? :rolleyes:
Health care plans provide for other medication. Why should they object to birth control?


Well, it appears you got ONE serious answer. I don't know of any 'conservatives' in general that are against birth control. Isn't that just a catholic thing? That's what I had seen as far as those 'against' it's use.

Personally I'd think that most on the right would support free birth control and free 'fixing' so there can be no kids, as the majority of those not born would probably have been voters on the other side. ;)

[jimnyc]

I think its because its viewed as something that can be used/abused to undermine personal responsibility and/or promote non-virtuous activity. Same way many would object to "other medications" such as cannibis for PTSD or wine for reducing blood pressure. I'm not saying I agree; quite frankly I'm against an employer making health insurance decisions; but why not prescribe a hand jibber for stress reduction while we're at it? :laugh: Just sayin


Forcing other people to pay for it.


hundreds a month for birth control?! what kind of condon... I mean.. well... if they use that much they need to be spade or neutered
AND
there are other forms of birth control that are free. 1 called abstinence. various form of sexual encounter don't have the birth hazard.. just saying.
Why should someone else PAY for others loose or "free" sexual behavior?

It like an achoholic being pissed off that the community doesn't want to pay for his cab fare home every night when the idiot can take the bus with 1/3 the cost of one drink or stay home and drink or STOP DRINKING TO THE POINT WHERE HE'S DRUNK OFF HIS ARSE.

Self control is a virtue, asking people to be responsible for their actions is not a moral offense Gab.
Enabling and encouraging irresponsible behavior is not a kindness.


Don't they sell condoms where you live? not that expensive. And why'd you cut off the rest of my reply? answers you question before you ask.

and uhh btw... when has men being unhappy been a big issue with some women?:poke:


I would disagree that birth control is medication per se. And also that we need to make everything subject to reimbursement as insurance should be for unplanned events and not treating insurance as a health care payment plan. But other than that you've completely misframed the discussion and came out of the gate with a straw man. Good on ya.

A little Aussie type lingo to make you feel as though you're still on vacation.


I say buy your own damn birth control or tie a damn knot in it!! Who knew condoms were medicine? Strange how now suddenly its so damn important to for all we working people to pay for more sex for the so-called poor people! These poor people with free housing, free food, free money(government checks) and free healthcare!! What you people want is government supported irresponsibility . That way those dependent on big government keep voting Dem for free stuff. some DAY THIS SANTA CLAUS RIDE WILL HAVE TO COME TO AN END. What's your plan when you libs run out of --other people's money? Are you going to give up all your money? That's what the current socialist agenda preaches. And of course only the government big shots get all the goodies, just like in Russia, China and other socialist states. The masses live like damn slaves while the controlling members of the State live like kings. A great plan until the day the masses finally turn on and murder all the slave masters. No utopias ever created , just a vicious cycle of murder, enslavement and corruption. No thanks, I plan on dying a free American one way or another! --Tyr


There isn't a conservative objection to birth control. There's a catholic objection to birth control, but not a conservative one.

Birth control is not "medicine", it is specifically used to prevent the body from functioning normally.

However, you're not really having a discussion about any of that, you're just slapping everyone in a room with the broadest strokes possible. This is about the conservative objection to religious institutions being directly forced to pay for a luxury item that is against their beliefs. Condoms are sold pretty much everywhere in America at this point, and are incredibly effective at preventing both pregnancy and STDs.

If you are having so much sex, so frequently, that you cannot afford condoms, then you need to seek therapy.


Again, not what is being said, though you are just basically troll baiting everyone as usual. Y'know, you seemed to be getting better for a bit there.

How are people going through hundreds of condoms per month? I mean, you'd have to be putting up numbers that would shame professional hookers to match those numbers.



Here's one: go buy a pack of condoms. Boom, you're set for at least one night, at about a buck a piece.

I will say this again: Birth control is not medicine. It exists purely and solely to stop a natural, healthy process of the body from operating. The objection from conservatives is not against BC as a whole, as most of us use a variety of it, but against the government forcing religious organizations to pay for it.


And Planned unParenthood gives out condoms for FREE,
but i think they might on give out cheap versions or be putting pin holes in them to increase the money making side of the biz, abortions


As others have stated, it's the demands to have others pay, and the inability of some dummies to use self restraint and/or condoms. But what creates such problems? Look here:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44521-Lack-of-personal-responsibility-remains-rampant


I have no problem with it, my medical insurance covers contraceptives. I would have a problem if I was required to pay for abortion or morning after pill insurance. I think both are morally wrong.

If Catholic or other religious organizations don't want to provide birth control based on religious reasons they shouldn't be forced to provide it now.


Yes. Women who are not ready or willing to have children should abstain from sex. Men who are not ready or willing to have children should likewise abstain from sex.

If you truly want to have sex, there is plenty of ways you can use protection without forcing other people to pay for it. Condoms really don't cost that much. Alot of birth control doesnt as well.


Bottom line on this question is. Why should younger, males, and senior male, and females be FORCED to pay for ACA (Obamacare) birth control, pregnancy, abortion, and assorted other USELESS devices when they will no longer, or never need such protections????

The objection IS NOT for birth control.., but the expense, and costs of birth control, and abortions placed on the shoulders of Americans across the board.

But then again. Liberals must never use EXACT facts to discuss this. So, they intentionally toss stuff out...like Mud on a Wall...hoping it will stick...the INFORMATIONALLY CHALLENGED won't notice.


To what degree should an employer have a say in what should be included in coverage?
There's an abundance of considerations, eg. fiscal, ethical etc.
i certainly can understand the fiscal argument; employers pay atleast the lion's share of insurance costs. But i believe the crux of the disagreement is on the ethical front-- that birth control, to varying degrees alters a natural course and this is considered by many to breach an ethical line.
But then, should fertility treatments be covered? What about Viagra for impotence-- isn't it natural to lose virility/potency? or propecia-- isn't hair loss natural?
To what extent is restoring natural phenomena (conception, virility, potency, hair growth) NOT, in actuality altering nature the same way birth control does. If its ethical from a medical standpoint, and, suffice to say such treatments aren't medically necessary (it's not a life or death matter), then is any of it really an issue that employer health insurance should cover at all-- doesn't it infringe upon the personal responsibility of the beneficiary?


Are they paying the bill?


Well, it appears you got ONE serious answer. I don't know of any 'conservatives' in general that are against birth control. Isn't that just a catholic thing? That's what I had seen as far as those 'against' it's use.

Personally I'd think that most on the right would support free birth control and free 'fixing' so there can be no kids, as the majority of those not born would probably have been voters on the other side. ;)

I'm pretty confident that the replies I quoted were serious answers, and almost each and every sentence in those quoted was respectful and on topic (a few jabs). Why not just reply to posts and ignore things you may not like - instead of replying to one, and indirectly taking a swipe at many?

[Arbo]

I'm pretty confident that the replies I quoted were serious answers, and almost each and every sentence in those quoted was respectful and on topic (a few jabs). Why not just reply to posts and ignore things you may not like - instead of replying to one, and indirectly taking a swipe at many?

I didn't get much past the first few…


Pretty typical gabby thread.


I do not object to abortion. I would never have objected to yours.


None... your parents should have used it more often

But you didn't quote and highlight and comment on those, eh?

THANKS. :thumb:

[jimnyc]

I didn't get much past the first few…







But you didn't quote and highlight and comment on those, eh?

THANKS. :thumb:

You spend time getting into the tit for tat crap with others, and then admit you didn't even read the replies that were on topic and serious. Maybe spend less time bitching about others would be best. You spend a lot of time talking smack about nearly every member here, singularly and as a whole, and about the board itself as a whole. Again, if all of these things offend you, feel free to bail at any time.

[Arbo]

You spend time getting into the tit for tat crap with others, and then admit you didn't even read the replies that were on topic and serious. Maybe spend less time bitching about others would be best. You spend a lot of time talking smack about nearly every member here, singularly and as a whole, and about the board itself as a whole. Again, if all of these things offend you, feel free to bail at any time.


More fantasy bullcrap. I am not shocked. :blah:

[jimnyc]

More fantasy bullcrap. I am not shocked. :blah:

You're welcome to respond to those that did in fact take the time to give serious replies to the OP.

[avatar4321]

To what degree should an employer have a say in what should be included in coverage?
There's an abundance of considerations, eg. fiscal, ethical etc.
i certainly can understand the fiscal argument; employers pay atleast the lion's share of insurance costs. But i believe the crux of the disagreement is on the ethical front-- that birth control, to varying degrees alters a natural course and this is considered by many to breach an ethical line.
But then, should fertility treatments be covered? What about Viagra for impotence-- isn't it natural to lose virility/potency? or propecia-- isn't hair loss natural?
To what extent is restoring natural phenomena (conception, virility, potency, hair growth) NOT, in actuality altering nature the same way birth control does. If its ethical from a medical standpoint, and, suffice to say such treatments aren't medically necessary (it's not a life or death matter), then is any of it really an issue that employer health insurance should cover at all-- doesn't it infringe upon the personal responsibility of the beneficiary?

if they are paying for it? They should have all the say it what is included.

If you want a better deal, pay for your own insurance.

[avatar4321]

More fantasy bullcrap. I am not shocked. :blah:

Because you are the one responding with it? If you dont want more fantasy bullcrap start reading and discussing things seriously

[logroller]

if they are paying for it? They should have all the say it what is included.

If you want a better deal, pay for your own insurance.
Its not as though its an operational essential like pens or paper, its part of a compensation package and compensation has tax ramifications -- so the fact health insurance is tax exempt, the public actually pays for it too. So if the business wants all the say in what's included, let them pay all the taxes on it; else, the public gets a say.

[fj1200]

Its not as though its an operational essential like pens or paper, its part of a compensation package and compensation has tax ramifications -- so the fact health insurance is tax exempt, the public actually pays for it too. So if the business wants all the say in what's included, let them pay all the taxes on it; else, the public gets a say.

No. That's horrible justification. Business gets a tax deduction on pens and paper as well does that mean that the government can make mandates based solely on that logic? I'm not afforded a tax deduction on individual purchases of HC but I'm still forced to purchase government sanctified insurance.

[avatar4321]

Didn't you start another thread decrying the lack of personal responsibility in this country?

Why then are you here trying to make every excuse why we should not be responsible for our own sex lives?

Gabs, I havent seen a response to this point.

Im geniunely curious why you think that expecting others to purchase your birth control is an example of personal responsibility.

[glockmail]

I'm against public funding of any elective procedure.

[aboutime]

I'm against public funding of any elective procedure.


glock. I Agree with you, but with ONE exception...."An OBAMA LOBOTOMY".

I would happily pay for that, if it would stop the LIES.

[gabosaurus]

It appears that none of you get my point. Birth control is not an entirely female issue. It affects men just as much as women.

In case some of you are not aware, sex requires two individuals. The process of getting pregnant also requires a male and female.
Thus, if a woman does not have access to birth control, and does not wish to reproduce, the only other answer is to not have sex at all. So where does that leave you guys. The answer obviously being yanking the crank even more than normal.
Some of you mentioned condoms, which are far from fool proof. Birth control is about 99.9 percent effective when used correctly.

The way some of you talk, I would be led to believe that you have NEVER had sex outside of marriage. Which I know is total bullshit.
Forget the "personal responsibility" bullshit. You can't just tell everyone not to have sex. It's not going to happen.
You can't keep bitching and moaning about single parents or young couple on welfare if you don't allow them to prevent it. You had sex when you are younger. If your kids are of age, they are probably having sex. Or thinking about it.

There are a lot of prescription drugs out there that are covered. All of them are elective. "Hey, I am not covering drugs for your cancer or arthritis! My religion doesn't allow it! It's not my fault that you decided to have cancer!"
And don't give me your puritan religious bullshit. Even inside of marriage, women shouldn't have to worry about getting pregnant every time they have sex. Or perhaps we should create more sexless marriages. I am sure those of you already trapped in one can attest to have much fun that is.

[jimnyc]

Thus, if a woman does not have access to birth control, and does not wish to reproduce, the only other answer is to not have sex at all. So where does that leave you guys. The answer obviously being yanking the crank even more than normal.

This is where you fall flat each and every time.

If a woman doesn't have access via insurance which is what you're speaking of, then why can't the answer be a 99 cent condom? Right away you figure that if someone else won't pay for it that immediately it means birth control is out of the question. Your reply, and your other thread made at the same time about "personal responsibility", are laughable when looked at separately. And if someone cannot afford 99 cents, then they shouldn't be worrying about who is paying for their birth control anyway.

[jimnyc]

The way some of you talk, I would be led to believe that you have NEVER had sex outside of marriage. Which I know is total bullshit.

Sounded to me more like everyone was saying that IF you have that sex, simply buy a condom and protect yourself without holding ones hand out and expecting others to be the birth control.

[jimnyc]

"Hey, I am not covering drugs for your cancer or arthritis! My religion doesn't allow it! It's not my fault that you decided to have cancer!"

You compare someone trying to get medication for a deadly disease like cancer to someone who is too ignorant to purchase a condom and wants others to foot the bill? You can use other analogies, as I don't think people "decided" to have cancer. I know you're not directly pointing it at anyone, but it's still kind of insulting to anyone who may have cancer or have/had a loved one who had the disease.

[aboutime]

it appears that none of you get my point. Birth control is not an entirely female issue. It affects men just as much as women.

In case some of you are not aware, sex requires two individuals. The process of getting pregnant also requires a male and female.
Thus, if a woman does not have access to birth control, and does not wish to reproduce, the only other answer is to not have sex at all. So where does that leave you guys. The answer obviously being yanking the crank even more than normal.
Some of you mentioned condoms, which are far from fool proof. Birth control is about 99.9 percent effective when used correctly.

The way some of you talk, i would be led to believe that you have never had sex outside of marriage. Which i know is total bullshit.
Forget the "personal responsibility" bullshit. You can't just tell everyone not to have sex. It's not going to happen.
You can't keep bitching and moaning about single parents or young couple on welfare if you don't allow them to prevent it. You had sex when you are younger. If your kids are of age, they are probably having sex. Or thinking about it.

There are a lot of prescription drugs out there that are covered. All of them are elective. "hey, i am not covering drugs for your cancer or arthritis! My religion doesn't allow it! It's not my fault that you decided to have cancer!"
and don't give me your puritan religious bullshit. Even inside of marriage, women shouldn't have to worry about getting pregnant every time they have sex. Or perhaps we should create more sexless marriages. I am sure those of you already trapped in one can attest to have much fun that is.


right you are gabby...except for geldings....which seems to fit your identity.

[glockmail]

Gabs go tie a mattress on your back you 98 cent whore who can't afford a 99 cent rubber.

[jimnyc]

Gabs go tie a mattress on your back you 98 cent whore who can't afford a 99 cent rubber.

Let's reign that in a bit. She's not invited to dinner at my house either, but calling her a whore is out of line. You're better than that and we both know it.

[gabosaurus]

I knew I could count on stupid thickheads like Glock and Jim to NOT read my response correctly. :slap:

I was NOT talking about the cost advantage of condoms. My point was that condoms are not effective in preventing pregnancy!
Condoms are great in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. But they shouldn't be relied on to prevent pregnancy.
I can tell most of you are guys because you don't know shit (and don't care shit) about birth control. Your entire mindset is "I don't give a damn if my partner is knocked up or not. I want to shoot my load and move on. Let the girl worry about it. She's a slut anyway."

Not to mention the fact that birth control has many other purposes other than to prevent pregnancy. But you don't know (or care) because you are a guy. Perhaps you should look it up (after you have finished watching porn, of course).

Jim and Glock, you should learn about these things. When your boys go out on the rut, you had better hope their partners are using birth control. Otherwise you are going to have problems.

[glockmail]

Let's reign that in a bit. She's not invited to dinner at my house either, but calling her a whore is out of line. You're better than that and we both know it.
Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities but she is a whore based on the definition of one. Or a troll. Pick one.

[glockmail]

I knew I could count on stupid thickheads like Glock and Jim to NOT read my response correctly. :slap:

I was NOT talking about the cost advantage of condoms. My point was that condoms are not effective in preventing pregnancy!
Condoms are great in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. But they shouldn't be relied on to prevent pregnancy.
I can tell most of you are guys because you don't know shit (and don't care shit) about birth control. Your entire mindset is "I don't give a damn if my partner is knocked up or not. I want to shoot my load and move on. Let the girl worry about it. She's a slut anyway."

Not to mention the fact that birth control has many other purposes other than to prevent pregnancy. But you don't know (or care) because you are a guy. Perhaps you should look it up (after you have finished watching porn, of course).

Jim and Glock, you should learn about these things. When your boys go out on the rut, you had better hope their partners are using birth control. Otherwise you are going to have problems.
You're such a sexist pos. You make me want to vomit.

[fj1200]

It appears that none of you get my point. Birth control is not an entirely female issue. It affects men just as much as women.

...

There are a lot of prescription drugs out there that are covered. All of them are elective.

First, those are some awesome strawperson arguments; Congratulations. Second, your point is only useful for justifying the expansion of government into ANYTHING. I'll agree that there is no medical reason for government to mandate that Viagra and the like to be covered by insurance but there is no medical reason that government mandate that BC be covered. There is a vast amount of misunderstanding that you have about what is elective and what is not. Elective drugs are medically necessary, non-elective drugs are not and only serve to increase overall costs of insurance.


Gabs go tie a mattress on your back you 98 cent whore who can't afford a 99 cent rubber.

Classy.

[jimnyc]

I can tell most of you are guys because you don't know shit (and don't care shit) about birth control. Your entire mindset is "I don't give a damn if my partner is knocked up or not. I want to shoot my load and move on. Let the girl worry about it. She's a slut anyway."

You know what, how about you go fuck yourself with these types of accusations. And to imply anything about my responsibilities, and how I treat women, or my wife, shows a lot about who you are (again). You always have excuses - but you also always eventually jump in the mud like this. This IS who you are, and it's sad.

I did just fine throughout my entire life, was always responsible AND NOT ONCE did I put my hand out for others to pay my way. I was responsible until I was married and until my wife and I decided we wanted a child. I have been equally responsible ever since.

Just because many of us see this is an open/shut thing, which anyone with a shred of personal responsibility would know how to handle without bringing others into it. I'm sorry you feel it mandatory to have others help you out, and others like you, with your own responsibilities.

[aboutime]

You're such a sexist pos. You make me want to vomit.


GLOCK... Gabby can't help it. Like Obama. She is an Immaculate MISS-conception. There was no opportunity for an emergency abortion. So...we have to settle for whatever comes because of that HOLE in the condom.:laugh:

[avatar4321]

It appears that none of you get my point. Birth control is not an entirely female issue. It affects men just as much as women.

In case some of you are not aware, sex requires two individuals. The process of getting pregnant also requires a male and female.
Thus, if a woman does not have access to birth control, and does not wish to reproduce, the only other answer is to not have sex at all. So where does that leave you guys. The answer obviously being yanking the crank even more than normal.
Some of you mentioned condoms, which are far from fool proof. Birth control is about 99.9 percent effective when used correctly.

The way some of you talk, I would be led to believe that you have NEVER had sex outside of marriage. Which I know is total bullshit.
Forget the "personal responsibility" bullshit. You can't just tell everyone not to have sex. It's not going to happen.
You can't keep bitching and moaning about single parents or young couple on welfare if you don't allow them to prevent it. You had sex when you are younger. If your kids are of age, they are probably having sex. Or thinking about it.

There are a lot of prescription drugs out there that are covered. All of them are elective. "Hey, I am not covering drugs for your cancer or arthritis! My religion doesn't allow it! It's not my fault that you decided to have cancer!"
And don't give me your puritan religious bullshit. Even inside of marriage, women shouldn't have to worry about getting pregnant every time they have sex. Or perhaps we should create more sexless marriages. I am sure those of you already trapped in one can attest to have much fun that is.

So we should just forget about personal responsibility when it comes to creating human life and rely on government and others for our sex lives?

You realize that avoiding personal responsibiliy for our procreative powers can cause some of the biggest problems we face in life? Not only that but our irresponsibility affects those around us and future generations yet to be born.

You can't claim to stand for personal responsibility while advocating against it on the most important reponsibility a man or woman can exercise.

[avatar4321]

This is where you fall flat each and every time.

If a woman doesn't have access via insurance which is what you're speaking of, then why can't the answer be a 99 cent condom? Right away you figure that if someone else won't pay for it that immediately it means birth control is out of the question. Your reply, and your other thread made at the same time about "personal responsibility", are laughable when looked at separately. And if someone cannot afford 99 cents, then they shouldn't be worrying about who is paying for their birth control anyway.

Exactly. Are people really not able to purchase a 99 cent condom if they want to have sex? Is that really asking too much of people?

I am also not inclined to believe that teaching people to be chaste before marriage and faithful afterwards is so impossible. If people understand why, they can do it. The problem is most dont bother even trying to be responsible.

[avatar4321]

I knew I could count on stupid thickheads like Glock and Jim to NOT read my response correctly. :slap:

I was NOT talking about the cost advantage of condoms. My point was that condoms are not effective in preventing pregnancy!
Condoms are great in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. But they shouldn't be relied on to prevent pregnancy.
I can tell most of you are guys because you don't know shit (and don't care shit) about birth control. Your entire mindset is "I don't give a damn if my partner is knocked up or not. I want to shoot my load and move on. Let the girl worry about it. She's a slut anyway."

Not to mention the fact that birth control has many other purposes other than to prevent pregnancy. But you don't know (or care) because you are a guy. Perhaps you should look it up (after you have finished watching porn, of course).

Jim and Glock, you should learn about these things. When your boys go out on the rut, you had better hope their partners are using birth control. Otherwise you are going to have problems.

If you really think that what men think about women, you must have had some very bad experiences with men. Contrary to what you think, most men don't go around thinking all women are sluts. Those that do aren't really men yet.

How is it unreasonable for a person to purchase their own birth control? Or purchase their own insurance to cover it? Why should the elderly be forced to carry coverage for birth control when they don't need it? How does it help someone on a fixed income who have to pay more for insurance because the law mandates birth control be a part of the policy? Why should the tax payer be compelled to pay for someone elses sexual habit? And why are they exempt from being responsible for their own habits?

[logroller]

No. That's horrible justification. Business gets a tax deduction on pens and paper as well does that mean that the government can make mandates based solely on that logic?
Solely? No but

Its not as though [healthcare is] an operational essential like pens or paper...



I'm not afforded a tax deduction on individual purchases of HC but I'm still forced to purchase government sanctified insurance. no you aren't. You can pay the fine tax instead. But the fact employer-funded coverage is taxexempt and individual coverage isn't thus illustrates the favored status of those who claim, 'well I pay for it.' Sure. We all do, but why should an employer be treated preferentially, tax-wise-- isn't it an individual responsibility?

[fj1200]

Solely? No but


no you aren't. You can pay the fine tax instead. But the fact employer-funded coverage is taxexempt and individual coverage isn't thus illustrates the favored status of those who claim, 'well I pay for it.' Sure. We all do, but why should an employer be treated preferentially, tax-wise-- isn't it an individual responsibility?

The former; it's operational if that's what it takes to attract talent. And I disagree with the latter; it could simply be that business has better lobbying abilities in having that particular "loophole" granted or it is simply a legitimate business expense tied to the cost of labor. None of that means we should use that sort of logic to increase the expansion of government into private decisions. The religion angle is simply one aspect of how bad the law is.

[glockmail]

Classy.
Thanks!:2up:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I knew I could count on stupid thickheads like Glock and Jim to NOT read my response correctly. :slap:

I was NOT talking about the cost advantage of condoms. My point was that condoms are not effective in preventing pregnancy!
Condoms are great in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. But they shouldn't be relied on to prevent pregnancy.
I can tell most of you are guys because you don't know shit (and don't care shit) about birth control. Your entire mindset is "I don't give a damn if my partner is knocked up or not. I want to shoot my load and move on. Let the girl worry about it. She's a slut anyway."

Not to mention the fact that birth control has many other purposes other than to prevent pregnancy. But you don't know (or care) because you are a guy. Perhaps you should look it up (after you have finished watching porn, of course).

Jim and Glock, you should learn about these things. When your boys go out on the rut, you had better hope their partners are using birth control. Otherwise you are going to have problems.
Wrong on so many levels. Perhaps you would consider this. Perhaps not but I offer this regardless. --Tyr

http://www.frc.org/specialpublication/rising-illegitimacy-americas-social-catastrophe RISING ILLEGITIMACY: AMERICA'S SOCIAL CATASTROPHE

By Patrick F. Fagan

The numbers are stark and incontrovertible. The United States is on an undeviating path toward becoming a nation of fatherless families. Last year, some 80 percent of the black inner-city poor children born were born outside of a married family. As the figure on the following page shows, moreover, this destructive trend is not confined to the inner city.

Commenting on recent data and the strength of the trend in the rate of births outside of marriage, Senator Daniel Moynihan recently wrote to NationaL Review editor William F. Buckley:


A few weeks ago the natal statistics for 1991 were published. I happened to glance at the series and thought I saw a straight line .... On a straight ascent from 10 percent of all births in 1970, births to unmarried women have now reached 30% (b = 0.86, r = 0.99). I do not believe any such correlation has ever been found in social science.1

That is, Senator Moynihan has never seen any trend in the social science literature as strong as this one.

To put this in perspective: In 1991, 68 percent of black children were born outside of marriage. When Moynihan wrote, in 1965, on the coming destruction of the black family, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was 25 percent among blacks.2 In 1991 the out-of-wedlock birthrate for the country as a whole was 29.5 percent. In other words, the country as a whole is further down the road of family disintegration now than the black family was in 1965.

This has huge implications for society and for the perception of social problems. For instance, the raw data seem to suggest that race is a major factor in crime rates. However, when one factors in family structure it turns out that the absence of marriage, not race, is the major factor in explaining differing crime rates.3 The rise in crime, in other words, is tied to the disintegration of marriage. Black men refuse to use condoms preferring instead a bit more pleasure over that of safety and pregnancy prevention. Facts and numbers prove that along with my black co-workers telling me that often over the years--they don't like to use condoms. Also they rate their reputation on how many girls they can father children by. May be stupid as hell but it is the truth. -Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

So you think all women not ready or willing to have kids should abstain from sex? I think your answer is going to be really unpopular with men. :cool:
Let's say you get married and decide not to have kids for a while. Would you approve of your wife refusing you for a couple of years?


If things are that dire, that you cannot afford a condom, or birth control pills, you should not be engaging in an activity that could result in parenthood for life. Eighteen years of raising a child costs a heck of a lot more. And don't even get me started on having sex with the kind of guy who cannot afford a condom.

Until I can afford working brakes on my car, I'm not driving. The potential outcome is not in anyone's best interest.

[Abbey Marie]

To what degree should an employer have a say in what should be included in coverage?
There's an abundance of considerations, eg. fiscal, ethical etc.
i certainly can understand the fiscal argument; employers pay atleast the lion's share of insurance costs. But i believe the crux of the disagreement is on the ethical front-- that birth control, to varying degrees alters a natural course and this is considered by many to breach an ethical line.
But then, should fertility treatments be covered? What about Viagra for impotence-- isn't it natural to lose virility/potency? or propecia-- isn't hair loss natural?
To what extent is restoring natural phenomena (conception, virility, potency, hair growth) NOT, in actuality altering nature the same way birth control does. If its ethical from a medical standpoint, and, suffice to say such treatments aren't medically necessary (it's not a life or death matter), then is any of it really an issue that employer health insurance should cover at all-- doesn't it infringe upon the personal responsibility of the beneficiary?

It is a valid argument to say that health insurance should only cover medically necessary issues. And I would include in that a yearly physical to reduce the severity of any such issues that might arise. Having erections and preventing pregnancy are not medically necessary; nor is reducing hair loss. Treating the flu and surgery for a broken bone (for example) are. I don't think this is rocket science.

[jimnyc]

If things are that dire, that you cannot afford a condom, or birth control pills, you should not be engaging in an activity that could result in parenthood for life. Eighteen years of raising a child costs a heck of a lot more. And don't even get me started on having sex with the kind of guy who cannot afford a condom.

Until I can afford working brakes on my car, I'm not driving. The potential outcome is not in anyone's best interest.

Exactly!! 99 cents or 10 bucks for a few weeks worth, and problem solved. If one can't afford that, and thinks they need someone else to but birth control for them - then how the fuck are they going to afford doctors, hospitals, clothes, baby food, diapers, more doctors, more food, education...

And then people like Gabby and many others will have the audacity to say "if you want less abortions and single mothers, then they need the birth control free". As if the ONLY possible outcome is an unwanted pregnancy.

http://i.imgur.com/NCeEDlj.jpg

[aboutime]

Exactly!! 99 cents or 10 bucks for a few weeks worth, and problem solved. If one can't afford that, and thinks they need someone else to but birth control for them - then how the fuck are they going to afford doctors, hospitals, clothes, baby food, diapers, more doctors, more food, education...

And then people like Gabby and many others will have the audacity to say "if you want less abortions and single mothers, then they need the birth control free". As if the ONLY possible outcome is an unwanted pregnancy.

http://i.imgur.com/NCeEDlj.jpg




jim. After reading most of gabby's crappy posts on this topic. I wonder if she, or the people she spends the most time with...even know, what this is.....

http://icansayit.com/images/condumm.jpg And, if not. Why all of us should shut-up about ABORTION.

[glockmail]

Gabby seems to be saying 'if you don't want the government to pay for birth control, us gals ain't gonna put out'. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Thanks!:2up:

:rolleyes:

[aboutime]

Gabby seems to be saying 'if you don't want the government to pay for birth control, us gals ain't gonna put out'. :laugh:


glock. Yeah. That's how it sounds to me too! But gabby's professional life will come to an end someday when the BOTOX treatments make her look like Joan Rivers...and her mirrors break.

[jimnyc]

Gabby seems to be saying 'if you don't want the government to pay for birth control, us gals ain't gonna put out'. :laugh:

If I were with a gal who was irresponsible enough to think others should do the protecting for her, I would rather she didn't put out.

[Abbey Marie]

Gabby seems to be saying 'if you don't want the government to pay for birth control, us gals ain't gonna put out'. :laugh:


Yes, that is exactly the kind of conversation we all have "in the moment". :laugh2:

[aboutime]

If I were with a gal who was irresponsible enough to think others should do the protecting for her, I would rather she didn't put out.

jimnyc. Think we can get gabby to watch, and learn from this?....
http://youtu.be/5E5NI0vDGhM

[avatar4321]

Gabby seems to be saying 'if you don't want the government to pay for birth control, us gals ain't gonna put out'. :laugh:

Thankfully, my wife wouldn't do something so ridiculous.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thankfully, my wife wouldn't do something so ridiculous. My wife would not do that either. She knows sex is a part of the bond that has husband and wife cleave together. Its called lovemaking for a reason.

[logroller]

The former; it's operational if that's what it takes to attract talent. And I disagree with the latter; it could simply be that business has better lobbying abilities in having that particular "loophole" granted or it is simply a legitimate business expense tied to the cost of labor. None of that means we should use that sort of logic to increase the expansion of government into private decisions. The religion angle is simply one aspect of how bad the law is.
To the former, cash is a superior attractant in every way...except when there are tax considerations. Its a de facto subsidy. As to the latter, I agree its bad law; I'm just pointing out that this loophole is the camel's head in the tent-- so in the spirit of solving the problem rather than the symptom we would be wise to consider the veracity of tax privileges afforded to certain persons. If free markets are what we believe them to be, and healthcare insurance is a public good worthy of favored tax consideration (such as capital investment) then it would indicate that any and all persons should be qualified.

[Voted4Reagan]

100% of those in favor of Abortion have already been born...

[fj1200]

To the former, cash is a superior attractant in every way...except when there are tax considerations. Its a de facto subsidy. As to the latter, I agree its bad law; I'm just pointing out that this loophole is the camel's head in the tent-- so in the spirit of solving the problem rather than the symptom we would be wise to consider the veracity of tax privileges afforded to certain persons. If free markets are what we believe them to be, and healthcare insurance is a public good worthy of favored tax consideration (such as capital investment) then it would indicate that any and all persons should be qualified.

But HC as a benefit and the tax "subsidy" were not introduced as a means of providing, or encouraging, a public good. And of course cash would be superior but at the time benefits were being offered in lieu of being able to offer cash; read other government regulations. I agree that expanding the deductibility to individuals would be an effective way of encouraging individuals to purchase a worthy public good but the logic of stating that legitimate business deductions are a legitimate means of being able to introduce regulations is just awful and bad precedent; there is no expansion that can't be justified by that reasoning.

Of course your first problem was implying that our HC markets are anything close to free. :slap: Which is why I've been arguing elsewhere that the superior solution is massive deregulation. :poke:

[logroller]

But HC as a benefit and the tax "subsidy" were not introduced as a means of providing, or encouraging, a public good. And of course cash would be superior but at the time benefits were being offered in lieu of being able to offer cash; read other government regulations. I agree that expanding the deductibility to individuals would be an effective way of encouraging individuals to purchase a worthy public good but the logic of stating that legitimate business deductions are a legitimate means of being able to introduce regulations is just awful and bad precedent; there is no expansion that can't be justified by that reasoning.

Of course your first problem was implying that our HC markets are anything close to free. :slap: Which is why I've been arguing elsewhere that the superior solution is massive deregulation. :poke:
At the time...there was a freeze on monetary compensation. Such is no longer the case. I didn't mean to imply markets are free, only that free markets offer benefits.

'Massive Deregulation' ...like Eliminating a loophole which distorts both healthcare and labor markets-- its a twofor.

[fj1200]

At the time...there was a freeze on monetary compensation. Such is no longer the case. I didn't mean to imply markets are free, only that free markets offer benefits.

'Massive Deregulation' ...like Eliminating a loophole which distorts both healthcare and labor markets-- its a twofor.

Yes, at the time, but the legacy endures. No, massive deregulation that removes government interference in the markets.

[DragonStryk72]

It appears that none of you get my point. Birth control is not an entirely female issue. It affects men just as much as women.

Yes, we get that. I really wish you would stop trying to talk like we don't understand basic concept

In case some of you are not aware, sex requires two individuals. The process of getting pregnant also requires a male and female.

And both are quite capable of acquiring condoms at every convenience store and pharmacy on the planet, and even do so ahead of time.

Thus, if a woman does not have access to birth control, and does not wish to reproduce, the only other answer is to not have sex at all. So where does that leave you guys. The answer obviously being yanking the crank even more than normal.

Um, no, it leaves us at the local 7-11 buying condoms for use as birth control. Why would a woman not have access to this form of birth control? In fact, since the condom is going inside her, it would likely be a good idea for her to do some decision-making on the brand and style.

Some of you mentioned condoms, which are far from fool proof. Birth control is about 99.9 percent effective when used correctly.

All of us mentioned condoms, because they work. Yeah, sorry but I've been having sex for over a decade now at a pretty regular rate, and never, not once, have I had a condom fail on me. Now either I'm a massive statistical anomaly alongside every single one of my male friends, or condoms are pretty solid.

Also bear in mind that condoms are the only BC method that prevents STDs, so yeah, condoms=better.

The way some of you talk, I would be led to believe that you have NEVER had sex outside of marriage. Which I know is total bullshit.

You mean because we don't agree with you? Yeah, your intolerance is showing again.

Forget the "personal responsibility" bullshit. You can't just tell everyone not to have sex. It's not going to happen.

Okay, so have sex with a condom on, or buy female BC at the local drug store, or both people accept the personal consequences. In any event, those personal decision are not on the employer.

You can't keep bitching and moaning about single parents or young couple on welfare if you don't allow them to prevent it. You had sex when you are younger. If your kids are of age, they are probably having sex. Or thinking about it.

Yes, and funny thing, we did so with condoms on, and BC wasn't covered back then either. It's amazing how you seem to skip that point as often as possible. Btw, since you are apparently against condoms, why is it that you want women to have more STDs?

There are a lot of prescription drugs out there that are covered. All of them are elective. "Hey, I am not covering drugs for your cancer or arthritis! My religion doesn't allow it! It's not my fault that you decided to have cancer!"

Ah good, the insane extremist argument, that just about completes the checklist of how you argue on here. That's never going to happen, and you know it, nor would it, and they would be slapped down immediately were it to happen, because you are denying people life. Whether or not BC is covered in your medical insurance, you are still at liberty to buy some cheap BC anywhere in the country, so no, your analogy doesn't work. For it to work, you would have to compare it to unnecessary boob jobs not being covered on your insurance.

Also, if you're so dead set on having BC coverage, why not work for someone other than the church? Oh right, that's bringing up the obvious problem of this.

And don't give me your puritan religious bullshit. Even inside of marriage, women shouldn't have to worry about getting pregnant every time they have sex. Or perhaps we should create more sexless marriages. I am sure those of you already trapped in one can attest to have much fun that is.

The only one being puritanical, as you are using it, is you. Of course, you're not using it properly, but then I didn't expect you would. Yes, even inside of marriage, women shouldn't have to worry about getting pregnant every time they have sex. This is why cheap birth control for both men and women is available at every drug store in the country.

[aboutime]

The only one being puritanical, as you are using it, is you. Of course, you're not using it properly, but then I didn't expect you would. Yes, even inside of marriage, women shouldn't have to worry about getting pregnant every time they have sex. This is why cheap birth control for both men and women is available at every drug store in the country.



DragonStryk. As most of us have seen over many, many months. Gabby has become more expert at patronizing, and condescension of any other human being who..ISN'T GABBY.

Gabby still believes she, and she alone is the SOLE human on this planet who is permitted to look down her long...WOODEN nose at all of us. Because gabby is convinced. She is far superior to all other humans, and more educated.

Just ask her.

[Arbo]

DragonStryk. As most of us have seen over many, many months. Gabby has become more expert at patronizing, and condescension of any other human being who..ISN'T GABBY.

Gabby still believes she, and she alone is the SOLE human on this planet who is permitted to look down her long...WOODEN nose at all of us. Because gabby is convinced. She is far superior to all other humans, and more educated.

Just ask her.

DragonStryk. As most of us have seen over many, many months. aboutime is an expert at patronizing and condescension all others while never actually discussing a topic.

aboutime still believes he and he alone is the SOLE human on this planet who is permitted to look down his long WOODEN nose at all of us. Because aboutime is convinced he is far superior to all other humans.

Just ask him.

:clap: