• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men’s Viagra access

TheNextEra said:
Of course you see nothing wrong with that, most pro-lifers don't. Pro-Lifers are acting like little kids that can't get their way, so they're throwihng a temper tanturm to make it more difficult. It's quite pathetic and quite telling.
Click to expand...

Pro-lifers throw "temper tantrums" because want women to deliberate further before they make the decision to kill their baby? What's your hurry?

In fact there is no hurry at all. Babies are often alive after botched abortions and then murdered. And now the next step is to murder even after they are born through a normal pregnancy. It's the next logical step.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics
 
Daktoria said:
Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men



I don't really get why this is happening. ED drugs are taken by elderly men to satisfy their wives.

The only justification I can imagine is women are threatening to cheat. In case young'uns didn't know, men's sex drives tend to plummet as we get older.
Click to expand...

It's stupid gamesmanship in response to the controversy about health insurance covering birth control for women.

Now that the Congress has managed to balance the budget, bring unemployment below 5%, end illegal immigration, bring health care costs under control, end the wars in the Mid East, and stop their incessant partisan bickering, they don't have enough to do. They all have time one their hands, so they amuse themselves proposing absurd legislation that has no chance be being passed.
 
Grant said:
Babies are often alive after botched abortions and then murdered.
Click to expand...

Do you have a cite to support that statement?
 
AdamT said:
And who says Republicans are sexist pigs? What nonsense! :lol:
Click to expand...

That's right, we believe in using the election process to weed out the incompetent, like these women.
 
Ockham said:
It may interest you to know that not everyone shares the same opinion, even when it may seem obvious to you and I.
Click to expand...

And now women's differing of opinion will be putting Ohio men's reproductive/sexual freedoms on the chopping block. Poetic, ain't it?
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's stupid gamesmanship in response to the controversy about health insurance covering birth control for women.

Now that the Congress has managed to balance the budget, bring unemployment below 5%, end illegal immigration, bring health care costs under control, end the wars in the Mid East, and stop their incessant partisan bickering, they don't have enough to do. They all have time one their hands, so they amuse themselves proposing absurd legislation that has no chance be being passed.
Click to expand...

To be fair, if social struggles (e.g. civil liberties) were always put on the back burner behind the economy and world peace, women still wouldn't be allowed to vote. Sometimes you gotta force your way to the front of the line to move social progress forward.
 
Cardinal said:
To be fair, if social struggles (e.g. civil liberties) were always put on the back burner behind the economy and world peace, women still wouldn't be allowed to vote. Sometimes you gotta force your way to the front of the line to move social progress forward.
Click to expand...

How is a bill which would limit men’s access to Viagra "social progress"?
 
Grant said:
How is a bill which would limit men’s access to Viagra "social progress"?
Click to expand...

I think more pertinent questions would be,

1)When was the last time women legislated to take away freedoms related to male sexuality/reproduction?
2)When was the last time men legislated to take away freedoms related to female sexuality/reproduction?
 
Cardinal said:
I think more pertinent questions would be,

1)When was the last time women legislated to take away freedoms related to male sexuality/reproduction?
2)When was the last time men legislated to take away freedoms related to female sexuality/reproduction?
Click to expand...

You made a claim and should answer the question rather than deflecting elsewhere. I'm not interested in what you think is "pertinent "if you can't respond to a question surrounding a claim you made.
 
Grant said:
You made a claim and should answer the question rather than deflecting elsewhere. I'm not interested in what you think is "pertinent "if you can't respond to a question surrounding a claim you made.
Click to expand...

I was responding to a very specific point that Dittohead brought up, that being (as I understand it), that legislators are wasting the country's time if they're handling any issues besides the economy, wars, immigration, etc. I responded using Women's Suffrage as an example of why that kind of black-and-white thinking isn't necessarily always good for the progress of a nation.

That's all. I wasn't trying to deflect, I was simply more interested in what I saw as being the main point of the legislators' protest, which I believe is on topic.
 
Cardinal said:
I was responding to a very specific point that Dittohead brought up, that being (as I understand it), that legislators are wasting the country's time if they're handling any issues besides the economy, wars, immigration, etc. I responded using Women's Suffrage as an example of why that kind of black-and-white thinking isn't necessarily always good for the progress of a nation.

That's all. I wasn't trying to deflect, I was simply more interested in what I saw as being the main point of the legislators' protest, which I believe is on topic.
Click to expand...

What you saw as the "main point of the legislators protest," was not women's suffrage but, as the thread says "Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men’s Viagra access".

To claim this is anything like women's suffrage, which i fully support, is deflection. It is not progress, it is not noble, it is inane.
 
Grant said:
What you saw as the "main point of the legislators protest," was not women's suffrage but, as the thread says "Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men’s Viagra access".

To claim this is anything like women's suffrage, which i fully support, is deflection. It is not progress, it is not noble, it is inane.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Again, it was a specific response to Dittohead's specific point. You're fixating on an entirely peripheral side topic. Let it go.

1)When was the last time women legislated to take away freedoms related to male sexuality/reproduction?
2)When was the last time men legislated to take away freedoms related to female sexuality/reproduction?
 
Cardinal said:
To be fair, if social struggles (e.g. civil liberties) were always put on the back burner behind the economy and world peace, women still wouldn't be allowed to vote. Sometimes you gotta force your way to the front of the line to move social progress forward.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that the government deciding that health insurers have to cover birth control and Viagra is really civil rights. Sounds to me like it is in the realm of economy.
 
Grant said:
Or when an how often she has an abortion.

Just as long as other people pay for it.

Or when or how often she uses contraceptives.

Just as long as other people pay for it.

It's hard to believe that Women's Liberation has led to this sort of dependency. Was this what it was all about?
Click to expand...

No.

Good question.
 
You know: when this stuff via legislation 'to make a point' started happening I thought it was the dumbest thing ever - and was offended that they're wasting tax dollars and time on such ridiculous nonsense.

Still am actually.

But it really has brought out the total ass from a lot of men who had me previously thinking they were at least somewhat ok with women in politics and women in general.

You know - the anti-female backlash that has come from this directed at any and all women in general isn't helping 'men' out any right now for me: if I were you guys - I'd be embarassed and chastizing some guys who are being nothing but ****holes to any and all females over this.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
What idiot democrat thought the best move to "protest" a catholic university not providing birth control pills, to introduce anti-viagra legislation to the nation? seriously, this whole BC thing is an act by the Obama administration to get re-elected using bull**** nonsense. :lamo
Click to expand...

Why should the taxpayers pay for old sluts and prostitutes to have sex? :lol:
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You know: when this stuff via legislation 'to make a point' started happening I thought it was the dumbest thing ever - and was offended that they're wasting tax dollars and time on such ridiculous nonsense.

Still am actually.

But it really has brought out the total ass from a lot of men who had me previously thinking they were at least somewhat ok with women in politics and women in general.

You know - the anti-female backlash that has come from this directed at any and all women in general isn't helping 'men' out any right now for me: if I were you guys - I'd be embarassed and chastizing some guys who are being nothing but ****holes to any and all females over this.
Click to expand...

Look at this. Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men’s Viagra access".

Does that make women look good?
 
Grant said:
Look at this. Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men’s Viagra access".

Does that make women look good?
Click to expand...

Does it look good that any time anybody's sexual or reproductive rights come under scrutiny, it's always that of women, never of men?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You know: when this stuff via legislation 'to make a point' started happening I thought it was the dumbest thing ever - and was offended that they're wasting tax dollars and time on such ridiculous nonsense.

Still am actually.

But it really has brought out the total ass from a lot of men who had me previously thinking they were at least somewhat ok with women in politics and women in general.

You know - the anti-female backlash that has come from this directed at any and all women in general isn't helping 'men' out any right now for me: if I were you guys - I'd be embarassed and chastizing some guys who are being nothing but ****holes to any and all females over this.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure it's one of those "You're an asshole to me, so I'll be an asshole to you" types. Stupid i know, but men do that, even me, and you know I love women ;)
 
Cardinal said:
Does it look good that any time anybody's sexual or reproductive rights come under scrutiny, it's always that of women, never of men?
Click to expand...
bull****.

10 letters
 
Cardinal said:
Sigh. Again, it was a specific response to Dittohead's specific point. You're fixating on an entirely peripheral side topic. Let it go.

1)When was the last time women legislated to take away freedoms related to male sexuality/reproduction?
2)When was the last time men legislated to take away freedoms related to female sexuality/reproduction?
Click to expand...
1) a long time ago
2) a long time ago
done yet? Abortion/contraception =/= OMG I HATE WOMEN I HOPE THEY ALL DIE LOLZ.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
I'm pretty sure it's one of those "You're an asshole to me, so I'll be an asshole to you" types.
Click to expand...

I've known plenty of people who literally cannot comprehend the assholishness of their behavior unless the identical behavior is directed back at them. That's why I actually approve of the legislators' actions in this case. When people go on about sexual/reproductive rights and female equality, the only thing the other side hears is "blah blah blah." Maybe this is the action that will get some people thinking.
 
Cardinal said:
Does it look good that any time anybody's sexual or reproductive rights come under scrutiny, it's always that of women, never of men?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could give a clearer example of what you mean.

In fact the reproductive rights of women are under scrutiny of both men and women with the decision making in the hands of the individual woman. The man only comes into play when its time for the bills to be paid. Otherwise he has no rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom