- 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: Latest CNN melt: Trump will make sex less fun.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 7:25 am to Ted2010
Posted on 12/2/16 at 7:25 am to Ted2010
Putting my post from the other thread here
Did y'all even read the article? It was about female birth control being a mandated coverage under ACA possibly going away. Specifically long term BC like IUDs
IUDs are awesome and we should be freely handing that shite out like candy imo. I am all for the part of the ACA that makes
those be covered.
Huge future benefit to taxpayers. BC especially long term BC like IUDs = less accidental/unwanted pregnancy = less abortion AND less welfare babies for those who dont abort. It isn't a hard concept to grasp.
Did y'all even read the article? It was about female birth control being a mandated coverage under ACA possibly going away. Specifically long term BC like IUDs
IUDs are awesome and we should be freely handing that shite out like candy imo. I am all for the part of the ACA that makes
those be covered.
Huge future benefit to taxpayers. BC especially long term BC like IUDs = less accidental/unwanted pregnancy = less abortion AND less welfare babies for those who dont abort. It isn't a hard concept to grasp.
2
Posted on 12/2/16 at 7:31 am to gamatt53
quote:
Huge future benefit to taxpayers. BC especially long term BC like IUDs = less accidental/unwanted pregnancy = less abortion AND less welfare babies for those who dont abort. It isn't a hard concept to grasp.
Of course these sheep didn't read it. They think the better approach is to legislate morality instead of taking your pragmatic and economical solution above.
It costs a lot less for an IUD than to support a welfare baby for life.
This post was edited on 12/2/16 at 7:32 am
Posted on 12/2/16 at 7:35 am to Ted2010
quote:
Yet despite its efficacy at preventing abortion, not a single national pro-life organization supports broader contraception access. That's because at its heart, hostility to birth control coverage, Planned Parenthood, and abortion rights aren't about "life" or "religious freedom" or any other right-wing buzzwords. Price and pro-life advocates like him easily disregard the health benefits contraception brings because they care more about women having sex than they do about women being healthy.
They argue so well against THEIR OWN VERSIONS of what they think their opponents are.
Meanwhile. I'm pro life and as far as I'm concerned, every last woman should walk around perpetually horny and well protected. LOL
This is the fundamental problem with the left's rhetoric that they don't get. Sure, their descriptions may be correct for a subset of the people they disagree with but, they spend their whole time basically arguing that anyone who has a particular opinion is some sort of "ist".
This makes the quite large group who holds that opinion but is NOT some sort of "ist" basically say, "well alrighty then, frick you too".
Posted on 12/2/16 at 7:37 am to cameronml
quote:Only in upside down world is not MANDATING something "legislating morality".
They think the better approach is to legislate morality
In fact, it's pretty obvious that MANDATING it is legislating someone's morality.
The other approach is called freedom.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 7:45 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Only in upside down world is not MANDATING something "legislating morality".
In fact, it's pretty obvious that MANDATING it is legislating someone's morality.
The other approach is called freedom.
No one's forcing you to use birth control or have an abortion.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 7:50 am to cameronml
quote:I didn't say they did.
No one's forcing you to use birth control or have an abortion.
But, you probably need to go to a dictionary and check what the word mandate means.
Then, you might want to recognize that mandate means SOMEONE is being FORCED to do a thing.
You just don't give a frick because you're OK with forcing THAT someone to do it.
If no one was being forced to do something they didn't want to do, there would be no need for a mandate. So, grow up and ask yourself who the mandate targets.
Maybe THEN, you'll comprehend my post.
Oh. And, I do so enjoy how all of you lefties changed your names after the election so you could pretend to be new lefties. Spineless bitches.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 7:51 am to ShortyRob
quote:
In fact, it's pretty obvious that MANDATING it is legislating someone's morality. The other approach is called freedom.
That's a valid libertarian argument however it isn't unique to this. shite is mandated by the government constantly. If you going to go with the freedom argument then you have to be equally against all the other mandates like
mandatory car insurance to drive legally
mandatory training to get a CCP
mandatory permit to sell alcohol
Etc . Personally I'm ok with this mandate compared to some of the others because it will save the taxpayers a furtune.
This post was edited on 12/2/16 at 7:52 am
Posted on 12/2/16 at 7:54 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Meanwhile. I'm pro life and as far as I'm concerned, every last woman should walk around perpetually horny and well protected. LOL
Pretty much this.
I'm personally pro-life, my wife is heavily pro-life. Abortion would never be an option for us, but I'm not stupid, if not offered to women in a clean, sanitary and humane way, we very well could go back to the days of coat hangars and back alley "doctors".
It should be an option for women, it shouldn't be something that tax payers subsidize. Your decision, your wallet.
I also don't want birth control subsidized. This isn't about preventing women from having sex or advocating abstinence as I'm completely non-religious. I want women to be able to have as much sex as they please as safely as they can.
It simply comes down to this. I don't want to pay for your personal decisions.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 7:55 am to gamatt53
quote:It actually has nothing to do with libertarian.
That's a valid libertarian argument however it isn't unique to this.
If you're mandating something, then you are infringing upon SOMEONE's freedom. You may think that particular infringement is worthwhile and that's an argument to be had. But, one can't complain about not mandating supposedly infringing upon someone's freedom. That's just retarded. Not mandating is just that. Not mandating.
quote:No. I'm not against ALL mandates but I DO accept that any and all mandates, by definition, cause someone to have to do something they don't want to do.
shite is mandated by the government constantly. If you going to go with the freedom argument then you have to be equally against all the other mandates like
My issue is with the retarded view that failing to mandate something is an infringement upon someone's freedom.
No. It's just a thing government doesn't address. You can't fricking argue, "hey, the government didn't force that other guy to provide me something, so, the government is infringing upon MY freedom".
That's just stupid.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 7:58 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
It simply comes down to this. I don't want to pay for your personal decisions.
We already pay for people's personal decisions in plenty of other ways. We pay Medicare tax every month to fund healthcare for people who ate too many cheeseburgers and didn't exercise and now have health problems later in life. So we're paying for the consequences of their personal decisions aren't we?
This post was edited on 12/2/16 at 7:59 am
Posted on 12/2/16 at 7:59 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
I don't want to pay for your personal decisions.
I'm ok with it since it has a huge return on investment for our future tax burden personally. Dollars and cents should come first and foremost I thought trump would be that kind of president since he's a businessman
Posted on 12/2/16 at 8:17 am to cameronml
quote:
No one's forcing you to use birth control or have an abortion.
True, but you are forcing me to pay for others birth control. Look, if I were King I'd make Norplant mandatory for every sexually active person who's living off the state.
But the Sandra Fluck's of the world? If you're going to Georgetown law school and want to be a peg board for sissy SJW's go for it. But let them pay for it. If I'm paying for Sandra's birth control she needs to get her arse over here and let me recoup some of my investment....and make me a sandwich when we're done.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 8:24 am to Ted2010
Wait for it, because we can't have an abortion if we mess up.
Amirght
Amirght
Posted on 12/2/16 at 8:35 am to cameronml
quote:
We already pay for people's personal decisions in plenty of other ways. We pay Medicare tax every month to fund healthcare for people who ate too many cheeseburgers and didn't exercise and now have health problems later in life. So we're paying for their consequences of their personal decisions aren't we?
Again, I'm not stupid. I realize that we need safety nets in society. Would I like more stringent rules as to who applies for those safety nets? Yes absolutely.
Some random woman wanting to forgo paying for her birth control is not on the same level as caring for the elderly in my mind.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 9:06 am to Ted2010
We all know Trump is a big prude who married overweight, ugly women.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 9:12 am to Ted2010
quote:
defund Planned Parenthood.
I read where they received over 50,000 donations in the name of Mike Pence following the election. Doesn't seem like they really need any federal funding.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 9:54 am to gamatt53
quote:
Huge future benefit to taxpayers. BC especially long term BC like IUDs = less accidental/unwanted pregnancy = less abortion AND less welfare babies for those who dont abort. It isn't a hard concept to grasp.
Except for the problem that many of those on welfare want more babies.
more babies=bigger check
I would rather see federal money going to permanent sterilization. Heck we could even pay them to have it done. A lot of men would gladly accept a $2500 check and never have to worry about children. Many of them are not in the child's lives anyway. When they are chasing some tail, they are not thinking "I want to start a family". They are thinking "I want to get laid".
Its a win\win.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:29 am to BamaScoop
quote:53% of us?
Who is funding it?
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:56 am to alphaandomega
quote:
Except for the problem that many of those on welfare want more babies.
more babies=bigger check
Reducing family welfare (incentive to have more kids) is a different conversation than preventing it in the first place although the goal is the same. It's also something I think we should do. Why can't we do both then?
quote:
I would rather see federal money going to permanent sterilization.
oh I thought we were having an intelligent conversation nevermind
Posted on 12/2/16 at 11:02 am to Ted2010
Wasn't banning certain size sodas a leftist deal just a few years ago? People complain about smokers and overweight people putting a burden on our healthcare system and costing tax payer money, but no one mentions the lifestyle behaviors that lead to one of biggest healthcare epidemics ever and how many billions it has costed us (HIV/AIDS). Expecting someone to wear a condom as they bareback countless strangers is bigotry to the highest degree, but them damn smokers and fatties can go straight to hell.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News