- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Birth control is largely for recreational behavior, right?
Posted on 7/2/14 at 4:39 pm to onmymedicalgrind
Posted on 7/2/14 at 4:39 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
I just find the laser like focus on paying for. OCPs kind of funny. Compare that to the amount of money we are spending on insulin, statins, metformin, etc for fat asses whose "recreation activity of choice" is big mac combos over intercourse, and its mind boggling.
It's because sex drives people fricking crazy, particularly if they're the ones not having it.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 4:42 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:this. And it should be covered.
I think this can get dicey. Say a women has antiphospholipid syndrome and is at a huge risk of miscarriage. So either she just doesn't have sex with her husband, or she can have sex with BC? Sure, without OCPs she'll be fine from a physiologic perspective, but my personal opinion is OCPs are medically indicated here. There are many other gray areas.
One could argue that sex is not simply "recreation" for human beings. We aren't choosing between soccer and tennis here.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 4:44 pm to DCRebel
quote:
insulin, statins, metformin,
You know many type I diabetics would die without insulin, right?
I don't think keeping your pants on is gonna kill you.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 4:45 pm to onmymedicalgrind
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/20/21 at 8:41 pm
Posted on 7/2/14 at 4:47 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
So it foes against their religious beliefs that married people can have sex? Jeez.
No, you're wrong.
quote:.
Honestly, its not even against their religious beliefs that other people could have sex out of wedlock... It's against their religious belief for THEM to have sex out of wedlock
Nope
Posted on 7/2/14 at 4:52 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
One could argue that sex is not simply "recreation" for human beings. We aren't choosing between soccer and tennis here.
So the coverage of Viagra is actually a legitimate need and we can dispense with that talking point, right?
Posted on 7/2/14 at 4:54 pm to TigersforEver
quote:
You know many type I diabetics would die without insulin, right?
Im well aware. I thought it was pretty obvious I wasn't referring to them when i said "the fat asses who eat big macs." Clearly type 2, genius.
quote:
don't think keeping your pants on is gonna kill you.
Is this the only use for cyclical hormonal supplements?
Posted on 7/2/14 at 4:54 pm to efrad
Posted on 7/2/14 at 4:57 pm to the808bass
quote:
So the coverage of Viagra is actually a legitimate need and we can dispense with that talking point, right?
I mean this not sarcastically, but quality of life is important. People being happy is important. Why do dermatologists prescribe all these random acne treatments to teens when they will eventually just go away on their own? There are a multitude of other examples like this.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 4:58 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
I mean this not sarcastically, but quality of life is important. People being happy is important. Why do dermatologists prescribe all these random acne treatments to teens when they will eventually just go away on their own? There are a multitude of other examples like this.
I agree. QOL measurements are important for measuring the effect of a lot of drugs. It just removes the Viagra argument from the debate and I was pointing that out.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 4:59 pm to the808bass
That link also states only 42% use it solely for contraceptive reasons . Haven't looked at the original literature, though.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 5:06 pm to the808bass
I agree. And there are legitimate QOL considerations supporting the use of cyclical hormonal supplements in certain situations.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 5:10 pm to GumboPot
quote:In 100% accordance with Fluke's testimony.
some people are using birth control for other medical reason but I don't believe for a second that people are not taking birth control for the simple fact they want to frick for the fun of it
Having said that, WTF was Mike Lee doing addressing the statement: "the real question in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., was about “whether or not a person who runs a business should be forced to provide something that is largely for recreational behavior," as anything other than an abject lie.
The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with "something that is largely for recreational behavior". Not one damn thing. Unbelievable that Lee would not have eviscerated the SOB for the mischaracterization (assuming he didn't)
This post was edited on 7/2/14 at 5:12 pm
Posted on 7/2/14 at 5:11 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
I agree. And there are legitimate QOL considerations supporting the use of cyclical hormonal supplements in certain situations.
I agree.
But I would also posit that a company that decides not to cover BC or Viagra for QOL isn't the second coming of Stalin.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 5:17 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:So if you are Christian it is your duty to prevent other people from doing things that you feel is wrong? The Ten Commandments read: "Thou shall not..." not "Everyone shall not..."quote:Nope
Honestly, its not even against their religious beliefs that other people could have sex out of wedlock... It's against their religious belief for THEM to have sex out of wedlock
Posted on 7/2/14 at 5:19 pm to the808bass
quote:I didn't bring up Viagra, but I would agree that it can be considered a legitimate need. What talking point are you referring to?
So the coverage of Viagra is actually a legitimate need and we can dispense with that talking point, right?
This post was edited on 7/2/14 at 5:20 pm
Posted on 7/2/14 at 5:22 pm to mmcgrath
quote:Well, here we geaux. The idiot host is not appropriately destroyed by an idiot Senator for lying. Based on that, posters here take up the idiot host's idiotic statements as if they represent some element of truth.
So it foes against their religious beliefs that married people can have sex? Jeez.
Honestly, its not even against their religious beliefs that other people could have sex out of wedlock... It's against their religious belief for THEM to have sex out of wedlock. Isn't the supposed threat of Hell enough punishment for everyone else?
Again, HL's stance had nothing whatsoever to do with "something that is largely for recreational behavior"
Posted on 7/2/14 at 5:22 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Compare that to the amount of money we are spending on insulin, statins, metformin, etc for fat asses whose "recreation activity of choice" is big mac combos over intercourse, and its mind boggling.
to some extent maybe, but metformin and (most) statins are dirt cheap and have solid data supporting their usage in reducing morbidity and mortality. You save money by spending money, here.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 5:25 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
So if you are Christian it is your duty to prevent other people from doing things that you feel is wrong? The Ten Commandments read: "Thou shall not..." not "Everyone shall not..."
You're so incredibly misinformed about this case and it's holding that it's nearly beyond belief.
Hobby Lobby's position has very little to do with sex. They still cover most birth control and still cover medicines for STDs. The issue is with medicines considered to be abortifacients. They don't have a religious objection to sex; they have an objection to medicinally killing what they consider to be life.
Seriously, why not read the case before coming on here and spending time arguing something that isn't even at issue?
Posted on 7/2/14 at 5:26 pm to efrad
quote:How so?
IUDs and Plan B are not abortifacients
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News