Contraception and Viagra, why one but not the other?


  1. breadnatty08

    breadnatty08 pain rustique VIP Member

    There are still plenty of loopholes for them to avoid it. The health insurance companies would pay for it (granted, subsidized through the institution).
    I guess the point is, are we opening up the ability of ANY religious institution the way to deny treatment because it is against their doctrine?
  2. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    As I said, there are religions that don't approve of blood transfusions. I believe it's the Jehovah's Witnesses, but I could be wrong. Now, I have to ask ahead of time if my employer is a Jehovah's Witness or not when I apply for a job 'cuz if I'm in a car wreck, a blood transfusion may make the difference between life and death. There are people in my particular denomination who are right wing nuts and don't approve of doctors period. Now, as an employee, I must inquire of my employer as to his religious beliefs not just what my job duties are expected to be.
  3. AndyLL

    AndyLL Well-Known Member

    That's the way group policies work.

    The combined payments of the group (which are invested) pay for the high health costs of the few.

    I haven't been to a Dr for over 20 years but pay my premium month after month without complaining.

    Why? Because I know if I come down with a serious (treatable) disease like cancer it will not bankrupt me.

    In any case... free contraceptives save insruance companies money.

    Pregnancies are expensive.

    Heathcare of kids are expensive.

    Do you realize that most group policies do not charge per kid... they change a family rate?

    Preventative care lowers healthcare costs. That is why much of it is required under ObamaCare.
    BabyBlues and breadnatty08 like this.
  4. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest


    I think if it were left up to insurance companies, they'd charge extra for a woman's care since lets face it, women have to deal with more than men. And while men don't seek help until it's too late, generally speaking, that would probably cost more in the long run.
  5. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Let's be honest though, the cost of providing the pill is going to get passed on to consumer's. That's how it's designed. The health insurance company is not going to eat that cost (however big or small it may be) out of pocket.
  6. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest


    Personally, I have a bigger problem with my money going into a pool that enables impotent males to get their "soldier" to "stand at attention" than to help alleviate some symptoms that make women miserable once a month. And I say that knowing that there's a possibility that as a male, after a certain age, my potency can be somewhat diminished. In a society where people define a man by his ability to get it up, I think Viagra is an unnecessary vanity. If Hugh Hefner can't get it up on his own then that means it's time to retire that thing even if it means his image goes as limp.
  7. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I would love to disagree with that, but can't. I guess if Hef is banging whatever Playmate he's currently married to and there are no condoms or pills involved, it's ok. Put a rubber on that thing and God is displeased I guess.
    9to5cynic likes this.
  8. 9to5cynic

    9to5cynic Well-Known Member

    Now, I'm not a religious person, but I do read into the practices a bit....

    Could the argument be made that birth control and medicine are part of God's Plan? I mean, both things (medicine and birth control) are man-made, and an Omnipotent being would be able to stop or allow any such transgressions right?

    That's all I was thinking.

    Now, more on topic, I have to agree 'barbaric' is the word to describe this. It's pretty insane really. Wow. Should the government be dabbling in the affairs of businesses like this? I don't know. I mean, there are improvements that could be made, but those improvements could probably be made without government mandates. So I don't know. I think you'd need to test both ways and leave on as-is as the control group. But that's not possible yet .... (unless we're already in the matrix and we're just part of one group... ? :D ;))
  9. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    Oh lord.....

    Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com


    Along the same lines, in my state the "geniuses" have mandated that a woman is to be forced to watch a sonogram before any abortion is performed. My question would be, why not force the father to watch it as well? Why not force a man that doesn't pay child support to watch footage of their children? I'm guessing the double standard debate is going to be with us until at least November.
  10. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    +1.

    It still amazes me that we're fighting that stuff all the way into the year 2012. I remember it coming up when I was in high school (mumble) years ago. The man must take responsibility at the very least financially. They were both dumb enough to get pregnant, not just the woman (not talking about rape, of course, that is not a woman being dumb, obviously).
  11. breadnatty08

    breadnatty08 pain rustique VIP Member

    Haha, yeah I saw that video someone posted on FB. Pretty genius move if you ask me.
    Totally agree with Frisco, it is insane that this is still an issue. I don't know if it's purely because it's an election year and it gets people riled up against the Dems, or if it's a Tea Party thing (which I'd think they'd be completely against seeing as it's gov't really getting into your "business").
  12. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    A few years ago we had a vote about abortion in an RN class. The class was the typical majority of female to male students: about 33 ladies and two guys (I keep hearing that more males are becoming nurses, but haven't really seen it first hand much).

    Anyway, the question was simple: Is abortion good or bad. Verbal responses were encouraged.

    "Good" won by 22 to 13.

    Then came, "why?"

    The responses reminded me, oddly, of the debate on handguns for personal protection/concealed carry. It was "good" to most because "it's our right," and it was "bad" to the others because it kills.

    Later I was glad I had lunch off campus that day, because I heard that the "discussion" continued in the cafeteria. :D
  13. AntimonyER

    AntimonyER AF Addict VIP Member

    Abortion is strange because it is the only time those on the left don't side with life. Animals, trees, convicted murderers, guns, wars, they all proclaim that life, even inanimate life, is too precious, to kill or put in danger.
  14. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    I think that those on the so-called "left" view the choices made between a woman and her doctor as the issue, and none of the government's business (beyond the state issued credentials of the doctor), and not the moral issue of ending a pregnancy. That moral issue is in the debate because it's seen by the so-called "right" as the real issue, choice be damned, free country or not.

    Meanwhile, the so-called "pro-lifers" have the dichotomy of being in favor of the killing of a captured, incarcerated criminal, all the while sporting "pro-life" as their high-held, screaming banner. The are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion, but the name "pro-life," a lie, is a great PR banner as opposed to "pro-some life," I suppose.
    9to5cynic likes this.
  15. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    "A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree."

    Judith Jarvis Thomson. "A Defense of Abortion". Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971)
  16. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    It sure seemed like a person to us, when we first found out that my wife was pregnant.

    That moment was the beginning of quite a loving relationship between us and the child.

    But we do understand that our feelings about that should not be forced on other women, other couples. That's where we part company with the anti-abortion folks.
    IOWA likes this.
  17. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    To be fair, the pro-choice side is the same way. What? You don't think people should be able to make choices? What are you some kind of communist? There is plenty of emotional rhetoric built in the names of both groups.
  18. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    Yes, and I've always found something else interesting and telling:

    Both on polarized sides of that issue have something important in common (besides both of them fancying themselves Great Crusaders): healthcare rights activists (mostly on the "left") want to be able to make a choice to kill something and so do death penalty activists (mostly on the "right").
    9to5cynic likes this.
  19. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    The courts do not support your position, once you enter into the public forum, you must abide by the same rules as everybody else.

    United States v. Lee, 1982, an employer must pay Social Security and unemployment taxes despite a religious objection.

    Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 1985, religious organizations must pay their workers minimum wages despite a religious protest.

    Employment Division v. Smith, 1990, laws that apply generally and do not single out religious groups may be upheld even if they intrude on religious practices.
  20. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    We're talking about apples and oranges though. The death penalty deals with adults who have made the choice to take a life and have been convicted by a jury of doing so. Abortion deals with an unborn human who has done nothing at all up to that point except exist.
  21. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    That's all true, but it's what they have in common that I'm talking about, not what the differences are.

    To extend your analogy, apples and oranges have in common that they're both edible fruit. Fetuses and convicted criminals are both living things that some people want to have the right to kill and that some other people want to prevent from being killed.

    But the point of "apples and oranges" is not what they have in common, but what's different, so why compare them? In the case of abortion and the death penalty we compare them because of that other thing that they both have in common: Those aforementioned people who want to kill them.
  22. copestag

    copestag Well-Known Member


    which conveniently brings us back to topic...... why is the left so gung ho about forcing private entities to pay for someone elses "choices made between a woman and her doctor" and "none of the government's business"
  23. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest


    Not entirely back on topic, the topic is why is Viagra acceptable to cover but Birth Control coverage not?

    But, I don't really care if the thread ventures elsewhere. I think you have to let the threads run their own course. I don't understand it when the mods try to control the focus of the conversation, it's a conversation for crying out loud. But I digress.....
  24. 9to5cynic

    9to5cynic Well-Known Member

    You know, wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare Birth Control and condoms? Just thinking out loud here.

    And what about mountain dew? I'm sure we've all heard that large quantities of mountain dew can lower sperm count, so would that also be morally 'negative'?

    I suppose this actually isn't 100% on topic, because this topic was in response to a certain talk show guy who's lost a boat load of sponsors.

    Anyone else find it weird that Bill Maher is taking his defense in regards to the advertising leaving him? I sure did. *shrugs*

Share This Page