The Supremes Tackle Birth Control

First and foremost, progressives don't believe in freedom of speech. It's not compatible with a progressive's ideal society as it enables people to be rude and hurt each others feelings. Just look up "Speech Codes" at universities, the more progressive they are the harsher the codes are on things not in alignment with the progressive religion.

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/05/15/college-speech-codes-and-the-neo-puritans/

http://dissenttheblog.blogspot.kr/2012/02/what-does-academe-think-of-civility.html

They put out crap like this




All speech is free speech. A core component any functioning democracy is the ability for anyone to express any idea even if that idea offends someone else. Progressives do not like this as it means their opponents are able to debate with them and attack their positions. It means they can't control your language nor your mind, and an uncontrolled mind is a very scary thought to them.

Nice of you to pop in and be irrelevant.

As for support on the issue. It's a resounding no. If a women wants birth control she can go out and exercise her strong independence and pay for it with a job and money. Otherwise it's nothing but a form of wealth transfer from males to females, especially since there is no male contraceptive. It's blatant feminism and a giveaway to buy women's votes for the Democrat party. Socialist healthcare is about providing for basic health needs, birth control is not a basic health need (neither is viagra or gender surgery).

now you're bring obtuse. trying to bar someone from having the same rights as you has nothing to do with free speech.

You dumb. The idea is that the government should provide access to goods and services that we, as a society, think everyone should have access to.
* Do you think every woman should have the ability to engage in sexual activities (with males) without becoming pregnant?
* Do you think every man should be able to get a stiffy even if he's old (viagra/penis pumps)?


By the way, I love the "wealth transfer from males to females" argument for two reasons:
1) Do you know how much it costs to give birth in a hospital? Are you capable of doing simple math, to calculate how many months of birth control each baby would pay for? Congrats! You just math'd yourself dumb!
2) Women need birth control (for several reasons, but mainly) when they're having sex with men. I ask you, don't you think males also benefit from the birth control mandate?

Even if you want to parrot your grandparents' talking points, please stop once in a while and think. They're old and haven't been reproductive in decades. They might not be the best people to take birth control policy advice from.

Would you agree with a drug that doctors could prescribe to improve a woman's health if a side effect was that it lowered the chance of pregnancy?

that is the best way I've ever heard that point made.

Only if you consider the fetus as a virus or tumor....

Like they said, don't be obtuse.

This has nothing to do with free speech.

Nope.

And that's a nice appeal to emotion you have there. If a women wants birth control then she can pay for it. The funny thing is pill's aren't even the cheapest nor most reliable option. Depo shot or implant are cheaper in the long run and more reliable. Of course it's much harder for her to "accidentally" get pregnant.

And yes it's definitely wealth transfer. Your taking money from a healthy male and using that money to provide a benefit that is solely available to a female. The ACA also attempted to ban charging women more then men even though women utilize more services then men do between 20~40 years old, mostly due to pregnancy. As these costs still need to be paid, the additional amounts that they couldn't charge women would then be charged to men.

Wealth transfer, when kept to absolute essentials, isn't a bad thing. It's when it's used indiscriminately as a social engineering tool that things start to go badly for society as a whole.

apparently men never benefit from avoiding unwanted pregnancy or the costs involved

What a clever attempt to hide your inherent sexism. You almost make it sound as though you have some kind of concern beyond yourself.

Your wrong.

That is a pretty stupid statement to begin with but let me enlighten you.

Anything and everything that can go wrong with the female reproductive system usually does unfortunately. I've had anything from 5 week long heavy periods, to ovarian cysts the size of golf balls over the 15 years I've been a mature woman. I also have endometriosis.

Guess what solves those problems? Birth control! Hormone therapy is a SUPER COMMON treatment for many many many female reproduction problems, and none of them involve a fetus or baby of any kind.

Have a ovarian cyst? The Pill.

Have long, painful, heavy periods where you frequently have to call into work, and can't live a normal life during your cycle? The Pill.

Want a lower cervical and ovarian cancer rate? The Pill.

Have terrible acne and hate yourself? The Pill.

Become a raging tiger during PMS, keep picking fights, cant study in school, and no one wants to be around you? The Pill.

Most people who are against this argument are men (and ignorant women) who do not know about the benefits of such pill other than it "kills babies" are seriously hurting this country and the world. Who wouldn't want lower cancer risk and light, painless periods? I don't know any girl who wouldnt jump to that.

Yes it CAN make you fat, on the pill you CAN NOT live the same lifestyle as you once did, you need to start dieting and exercise. Don't expect to have one good thing without a bad thing, and unfortunately that is weight gain.... Diet and exercise is required on the pill.

More on this:
So with the "woman wants it, she can pay for it herself" argument, you might actually have a family member/coworker/friend in a situation as described above and have terrible pains and unable to live day to day life, but are being treated by the pill. If they had no money they would still be in that pain, would you want them to suffer? no, you would be asking why she could not get the medicines she needs. Same thing if that pain was coming from sleep deprivation, a tumor somewhere else in the body, or a broken arm, etc.

Ohai, it's Emerii...

I'm pretty sure that Hormone therapy is not birth control. There are pills that prevent pregnancy, and there are pills to prevent those types of things you described.

Besides, it makes one wonder how women lived without these pills in the first place. Are we, as a society, trying to grasp at straws so much as to consider unborn children as diseases to justify forcing people who don't want pregnancy coverage into buying it, as mandated by law?

HAHAHAHAHA

Any benefit the man receives is due solely to the women not wanting to restrict herself. The man has zero choice in the matter of her pregnancy but will be hit with a 18 year annuity should she chose so. The really funny part is that her having pills does absolutely nothing to prevent the man from being baby trapped. If your GF is on the pill, you are still not safe from pregnancy as she can decide to stop taking them as a way to force you into monetary commitment.


NOOOOOO!!!, I've been accused of something on the internet, whatever will I do, my life is RUINED!

Ohh wait, it's some random dude resorting to male shaming tactics and absence of social approval as a retort. That's kind of lame...

Really sorry, but hormone therapy is birth control, it changes your hormones in a way that is not natural to your body. And no, the pill and your "treatment" are one in the same.

Read:
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill
The Pill isn't just for birth control: Did you know that it can also protect against certain life-threatening cancers, plus help relieve some painful period symptoms? Here, experts explain the top seven health benefits of taking the Pill and how to make them work for you.

Read:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007111.htm
Hormone therapy (HT) uses one or more female hormones, commonly estrogen and progestin and sometimes testosterone, to treat symptoms of menopause.

Symptoms of menopause include hot flashes, vaginal dryness, mood swings, sleep disorders, and decreased sexual desire. Hormone therapy comes as a pill, patch, injection, vaginal cream, tablet, or ring.

I'm all for a healthy debate from whatever side of the coin and I've even expressed my opinion on people letting hate laced words roll off their backs... But... Calling someone a *** because they're attracted to the same sex or a *** because they want birth control does not lead to any sort of healthy debate and doesn't even add up to an attack on someone's position... it's just some person ***flinging inflammatory words around the room because they really have nothing better to say... If you want to engage in a healthy debate or attack someones position... all sides need to come to the table respectfully and discuss not insult...

Don't want to be trapped? Keep your *** in your pants or wear a condom. You talk about taking responsibility then lay all the responsibility at the feet of a woman you choose to engage in sexual intercourse with... You're obviously aware that she can stop at any time in an attempt to "baby trap" you so it's your own foolishness for trusting a deviant woman and not wearing a condom or taking other preventitive measures... Take some responsibility man... every time you have sex there is always the chance that a pregnancy will result... Act accordingly.

Hormonal birth control is actually bad for a women's health. It screws with her mood and body, though repeated use she will get used to it. One huge issue is that it alters her biological sexual selection mechanism. Women on BC will prefer sexual partners that are more affectionate, compliant and generally "nice" (aka weak). Once off BC and that ancient biological programming kicks in during her next ovulation and it's nothing but big confident a$$holes as far as the eye can see while she ignores her "supportive" partner.

http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2009/10/11/does-taking-birth-control-alte/

On a side note. Male birth control is just about finished. RISUG is undergoing limited distribution in India and I'm honestly thinking about taking a trip. Vasagel is being developed in the states but it's going to be a long time before it's made available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance

http://www.newmalecontraception.org/vasalgel/

Then why not force condom companies into supplying free condoms to everyone. Or have insurance companies supply free condoms to everyone.

So they can not use it still.

Thank you for the information.

Thank you also for the information.

Well over here if go to a sexual health clinic you get free condoms but thats on the NHS. As for condom companies supplying free condoms is pretty much the same as "I like food so supermarkets should supply me with free food". Its up to you as a consumer though to think about it condoms cost £1 a baby costs a hell of a lot more.

She'll just poke holes in it, or sperm jack you. And then hit you with the 18 year annuity. The will even go daddy shopping. But ohh no, don't say anything bad about them, you might hurt someones feelings.

The only real problem with that logic and conclusion, is that what is defined as "Strong" and what is "Weak" in human society is not the same in the primal animal world. It also varies with the individual and their character.

Also, if we generalize the conclusion to the point of hyperbole, we could also say woman prefer polyandry over monogamy.

You're ridiculous. You chide the idea that one should learn a lesson about irresponsibility by being responsible. But completely overlook being murdered as punishment of being conceived to an irresponsible mother. You view unborn children to carry no "human" value whatsoever.


The infusion for religion isn't necessary for a corporation to achieve profits, but the people of the corporation have the right to live and run it under free exercise of their religion (1st ammendment yo).

Don't you realize that you're advocating for an entirely new class of citizen. We recognize everyone's fundamental/natural rights to X-Y-Z unless you start a corporation then you don't get those rights. The worker has a right to X but the company doesn't. You probably just hate corporations based on some bad experience and want the government to come in and strip them of all their wealth.


"Innocent life" is really what the "life" in pro-life means. I really have a had time accepting the premise that you're one of the enlightened when you remain so intentionally obtuse. Society makes a distinctions between life (innocent, guilty, lives lost in war). To lack the ability to understand these distinctions and interpretations is beyond ignorance.


If you were opposed to something, would you want to pay for its existence? I've never meet an actual person (in real life) that is opposed to the existence of birth control. You (and others) keep equating opposing paying for other's birth control, to opposing birth control itself. They are not the same!

Go for it. go to PP and go pick up a couple handfulls while you're at it... Just saying that you guys talk about personal responsibility all the time and Sav seems to be laying the blame completely at the woman's feet... Be responsible guys!

Edit: Again! Every time you stick your *** into a woman there is a chance she will get pregnant! Can't handle that? Don't have sex then... or get ready for the possibility of an "18 year annuity"

Abortion isn't murder, no matter how many times you say it Nausi.

Nobody is infringing upon the rights of those who run the corporation, seriously: nobody.

Stop trying to save your bad argument by trying to change the definition of "pro-life."

That's the thing about living in society, if you don't want to live in society, then by all means find an island somewhere and have at it.

Except the jury's already in on this. Sexual attraction is biological and can be studied and graphed. A women's sexual selection isn't some mystical random thing that nobody understands and "just happens". It's the result of millions of years of evolution fine tuning mate selection to acquire the best DNA for her future children's survival while simultaneously acquiring provisions and safety. Those two things don't need to come from the same male, she's perfectly fine having the children of the big masculine dominate male while the submissive supporting male brings her food.

It's tangible and once the PC bullsh!t is thrown out it's actually a very easy to understand system. There is very little variance in the preference. Actually their entire system is such that it would be nearly impossible for an individual preference to develop, group preferences dominate sexual selection for females. Whatever the highest status (usually the most sexually attractive / fertile) female desire the rest desire. One of the easiest ways to get quick hookups as a man is to simply tell women your married and wear a plain gold band on your ring finger.

And btw, your "character" has absolutely ZERO to do with her sexual attraction to you. Dominance, confidence, displayed masculinity (healthy muscular body), social proof and preselection (other females attracted to you) are what determine that.