Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

Removable Mind said:

Harry, your insistence on using "uninsurable events" is useless to the argument because, if all the things you claim to be the culprits to our high cost of insurance - werent LEGALLY making insurance companies tons money...their lobbyists would make sure that Congress outlaw the need for companies to insure such uninsurable events.

Click to expand...

They are uninsurable events if you go by the standards of what is and is not traditionally insurable.
No where did I say, that insurance companies couldn't make a profit from these venues.

You're creating straw men here.

katiegrrl0 said:

Not sure, He keeps saying how he is paying for women's health as if it's a one way street.

Click to expand...

He wasn't saying it that way at all; it's you who's adding that baggage, while again going on about "putting words in mouths":

Some people put words in others mouths without really reading context.

Click to expand...

katiegrrl0 said:

8.3% of Americans have diabetes
11.8% of Americans have heart disease
19.3% of Americans are considered disabled
That's about 40% of America that would be bankrupt because of illness just with those three categories. So most Americans would be just fine huh?

Click to expand...

you are basing your position on current price structures and mechanisms.... and that's a fatal flaw.
for instance, if the market opened up for insulin, we could have more than 2 companies who provide it ( 1 company, lilly, has a monoploy .. defined as more than 80% of market share).. insulin run about 50-55 bucks a vial ,wholesale... and we can't even blame pharmacies for the retail prices, as most sell insulin at a loss ( they recoup the loss through the sales of syringes, monitors,accessories etc)
you can thank your government for providing the monopoly... and thus, the prices... hooray for public medical policy and market manipulation!

I wonder how we would react if a female dominant society wanted to pass a law requiring a man to wear a condom when having sex unless his partner gave him express permission otherwise. Would we object to women making laws to control issues of men's health and reproduction?

Harry Guerrilla said:

They are uninsurable events if you go by the standards of what is and is not traditionally insurable.
No where did I say, that insurance companies couldn't make a profit from these venues.

You're creating straw men here.

Click to expand...

I hope like hell that I never have to buy insurance from you - should you ever own a major insurance company.

It's obvious that my having a stroke and heart surgery nearly 2 years ago...I would have been abandoned from getting help at any hospital...because the HARRY Insurance company told them you'd not pay.

But you wouldn't hesitate to take my premiums....right?

Harry Guerrilla said:

Well, I'm not saying that women should have their ovaries removed, boobs cut off or anything like that.
I'm saying that, in all fairness, you shouldn't expect me to help pay for something and then tell me to shut up about it.

Click to expand...

So vasectomies are fine by you, Harry?

You are a reasonable and intelligence guy, Harry. I often respect your opinion, but I'd prefer my wife and daughters be free to make their own decisions.

Removable Mind said:

I hope like hell that I never have to buy insurance from you - should you ever own a major insurance company.

It's obvious that my having a stroke and heart surgery nearly 2 years ago...I would have been abandoned from getting help at any hospital...because the HARRY Insurance company told them you'd not pay.

But you wouldn't hesitate to take my premiums....right?

Click to expand...

You basically just made up a whole bunch of stuff, not related at all, to what I said.

Risky Thicket said:

This entire topic is in-fecking-sane! Imma step right out here and tell the truth. I love women. My daughters are women, my wife is a women. Hell, even my own mother was a woman! God bless them all!

Let's get serious for a minute. Until men can become pregnant birthing is a woman's choice. God in heaven, can't you all get over it long enough to admit that women are often capable of making good decisions, equal to men. Imagine that?

Why not leave women the hell alone or let the women of America determine male reproductive rights and procedures? You guys ready for that? Maybe women decide men should have their nuts lopped off at 60, that's OK with you?

Click to expand...

wierd.. i love women too... especially my wife and daughters.... and they love me back.
they love me so much that they don't tell me things like " you're a man, you have no say in our health choices"... and we talk and talk and talk and we make decisions together.
I love them so much i offer advice and support to them in their health decisions without saying " hey you're a woman, don't talk to me about your health issues, I don't care what you do"

there is no gender war in my house.. we don't disallow anyone from having a say based on gender.

I guess i live in a really weird household.

Risky Thicket said:

So vasectomies are fine by you, Harry?

You are a reasonable and intelligence guy, Harry. I often respect your opinion, but I'd prefer my wife and daughters be free to make their own decisions.

Click to expand...

1. Having a say, doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you.
2. I'm just saying that it isn't morally right to make someone help pay for something, without allowing them input.
3. I'm perfectly fine, with women and their medical professionals, making their own decisions.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Nope. But since the biology is irrelevant and "attack" is not a biological word, I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Click to expand...

Only because you said you like to approach these things based on science. In this case, though, you're not.

When I said it could be considered an attack, you said it couldn't because it is "natural." Then you moved the goal post to "normal, internal." Neither negates that it may be an attack. The biology of it is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I said all along that pregnancy was the proper function of the organ, and thus it isn't an "attack," but exactly what the organ is supposed to do. That negates it being an "attack" as you defined it, as you referenced outside organisms "attacking" the body.

Pregnancy, in some cases, is regarded in some sort of negative light (attack, a disadvantage, doomed, or any number of other things) by many different species all over nature, including humans. We're not unique in that way. Some animals can "abort" whereas others will simply kill their young. Regarding pregnancy and reproducing as a negative is just as natural as doing the opposite, though less common.

Click to expand...

What other species "regard" pregnancy negatively?

As for regarding reproduction as a negative, that's a biological aberration when it happens (though I don't think it does in quite the manner you're implying). And it has to be; any species in which it's normal won't survive.

Thrilla said:

wierd.. i love women too... especially my wife and daughters.... and they love me back.
they love me so much that they don't tell me things like " you're a man, you have no say in our health choices"... and we talk and talk and talk and we make decisions together.
I love them so much i offer advice and support to them in their health decisions without saying " hey you're a woman, don't talk to me about your health issues, I don't care what you do"

there is no gender war in my house.. we don't disallow anyone from having a say based on gender.

I guess i live in a really weird household.

Click to expand...

It's not a gender war. It's a personal agency issue. If some men and some women could get pregnant and other men and women couldn't, I'd be making the same argument. I'm sure all of us on the pro-choice side would. This is also the same argument I make for all other rights related to doing what you like to your own body. Abortion is no different.

Saying "it's your choice" also does not exclude discussion and support. It allows the person to do what they feel is right for them, rather than feeling that someone else has the right to coerce them into decisions about their own body and health.

It's not "you're a man, you have no say." It's "you can't get pregnant, you can't force me to do anything with my body if I do." There's a difference between those two things.

Risky Thicket said:

I'd prefer my wife and daughters be free to make their own decisions.

Click to expand...

And you would never offer an opinion?

Harry Guerrilla said:

That's a far flung assumption.
Are the incomes and medications, so expensive that they could not afford to pay them on a regular basis?
What about changes in lifestyle related to these conditions, based on the fact that 1 type of diabetes can be regulated, without medication at all?

I already said I was in favor of a better, government program for people with disabilities.
Then again, the disability system has many, not truly disabled people.

Click to expand...

All diabetics have to test at least a few times daily. There are still medication that people have to take. They are expensive. I use ten test stripes a day. I use 24 units of long term insulin a day and two syringes plus I use a quick acting insulin at least six times a day and that's six syringes. I also have to use a medicine that is an injection to raise my glucose because not only does mine go up it can drop for no reason. That comes in a kit that is very expensive. I spend hundreds and that is just on co pays. I am not the only diabetic like that. Many suffer far worse than I do. I would be bankrupt in maybe three years on an average income if I had no help in insurance for that. I can afford it many can't and struggle and that makes the condition even worse.
The less care a diabetic takes of there condition the worse it gets and the more that is required to control it. If a person can't afford testing they guess and the condition gets worse. They double up on syringes and get infections that need to be cared for because the syringe cast will bury them.
Yeah some for a time can take pills to control it but the illness gets worse everyday and the pills no longer work.
OH diabetes is not considered a disability because though it's difficult people still work. They just need to take break to inject insulin and test. So some can't get disability and people won't hire them because of existing conditions and extra time off.
But you're currently healthy and don't see how this one illness tears a persons life apart. I work out of my home but have to have some here when i am awake because my glucose can go up or down so fast I pass out and have been found in a glucose coma several times.
But hey insurance shouldn't cover this stuff cause You're healthy and I hope you stay that way.
Now if someone does not have insurance Lantus insulin costs $300+ a bottle and i use two a month.
The other type which i use more frequently costs $120 a bottle and I use two and a half bottles a month.
Test strips are around $40 dollars a box gosh i use six boxes a month.
Thats about $1100 dollars a month without syringes and alcohol wipes plus doctor visits and regular blood tests. But yeah everyone can just pay that out of pocket. I would guess my health bills alone just for the diabetes run 20K a year. could you afford that. I have always taken excellent care of the illness as well. Imagine someone skimping by trying to pay those kinds of bills.

Harry Guerrilla said:

You basically just made up a whole bunch of stuff, not related at all, to what I said.

Click to expand...

Your absolutely right, Harry. I'm using absurd comments to respond to yours.

if you had the power...what benefits would you eradicate from EVERYBODY'S health insurance...right now...as we speak?

Harry Guerrilla said:

You're cherry picking what I said.

I'm talking about medical insurance for one and I've already acknowledged that they price these uninsurable events into the premium, making the cost of insurance high.

Click to expand...

A person making an income of $50K a year could not afford to be sick without insurance.

Harry Guerrilla said:

You agreed to pay premiums for coverage for those specific years, knowing that you wouldn't get anything, unless something bad happened.
So you actually got something, it just wasn't physical in nature.

I'm rationalizing that, If I have to pay premiums on coverage for issues related to vagina's and females breasts, when I have neither, I'm certainly subsidizing those who do have them.
My insurance is required to have coverage for these things, when neither me, nor my kids have female body parts.

Click to expand...

Well, that attitude certainly explains why you don't care about those of us who do. I guess I'm done here.

Harshaw said:

Only because you said you like to approach these things based on science. In this case, though, you're not.

Click to expand...

Actually what I said is that science helps clarify one half of the debate - the debate about what a ZEF actually is. I did not say it makes up the entirety of the debate.

I said all along that pregnancy was the proper function of the organ, and thus it isn't an "attack," but exactly what the organ is supposed to do. That negates it being an "attack" as you defined it, as you referenced outside organisms "attacking" the body.

Click to expand...

And since "attack" is not a biological word, it doesn't matter if it's what the organ is supposed to do or not. It could still be considered an attack by that woman, and she is perfectly justified in thinking so.

What other species "regard" pregnancy negatively?

As for regarding reproduction as a negative, that's a biological aberration when it happens (though I don't think it does in quite the manner you're implying). And it has to be; any species in which it's normal won't survive.

Click to expand...

Nearly all of them, under certain circumstances. They know when they are in non-ideal situations to have offspring. Drought, poor health, etc. Some animals have a lot of control over when they miscarry, and can do so at will. Others can arrest pregnancy for several months. Others can do neither, but will kill their young.

It's not always an aberration. Sometimes it's just common sense.

There are a few members of any given species who will always kill their young, regardless of circumstance. They are aberrations. But others who do so when they know that it's a really bad time to have offspring are not. The latter is more common than the former.

katiegrrl0 said:

A person making an income of $50K a year could not afford to be sick without insurance.

Click to expand...

What kind of "sick" are you referring to?

Harry Guerrilla said:

Yep, likely the reason that life insurance still costs more for men.
Funny how the government doesn't consider that gender discrimination.

Click to expand...

I know there are insurance companies that don't rate men higher and yes it is a discriminatory practice. The rates should be equal. I don't like anyone discriminated against not just women.

Thrilla said:

wierd.. i love women too... especially my wife and daughters.... and they love me back.
they love me so much that they don't tell me things like " you're a man, you have no say in our health choices"... and we talk and talk and talk and we make decisions together.
I love them so much i offer advice and support to them in their health decisions without saying " hey you're a woman, don't talk to me about your health issues, I don't care what you do"

there is no gender war in my house.. we don't disallow anyone from having a say based on gender.

I guess i live in a really weird household.

Click to expand...

Good on you, brother. Same, same my family. Women make their own choices. I don't often know what they do.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Well, I'm not saying that women should have their ovaries removed, boobs cut off or anything like that.
I'm saying that, in all fairness, you shouldn't expect me to help pay for something and then tell me to shut up about it.

Click to expand...

I go back to the fact that my taxes are used toward the military and i do not support anything they do. Nothing. Yet i pay that and don't whine.

Harshaw said:

He wasn't saying it that way at all; it's you who's adding that baggage, while again going on about "putting words in mouths":

Click to expand...

I made a statement which he has said nothing about only you have made comment on it. It obviously didn't bother him that I said that. Hmmm

My position has always been no matter what your political views are if you are a man with a half brain, you just let women have this one and do what they want if you agree with it or not. Some things just arent worth fighting women over and this is one of them. Give it up guys. Just give it up.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Actually what I said is that science helps clarify one half of the debate - the debate about what a ZEF actually is. I did not say it makes up the entirety of the debate.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. And I didn't start with "natural" and then "move the goalpost" into "proper," I said from the first that it was about a woman's organs working correctly.

And since "attack" is not a biological word, it doesn't matter if it's what the organ is supposed to do or not. It could still be considered an attack by that woman, and she is perfectly justified in thinking so.

Click to expand...

She's entitled to the opinion, of course, but "justified" is another argument.

Some animals have a lot of control over when they miscarry, and can do so at will. Others can arrest pregnancy for several months.

Click to expand...

Like which ones?

Others can do neither, but will kill their young.

Click to expand...

Then that's something other than regarding the pregnancy, the process happening in their bodies, negatively.

It's not always an aberration. Sometimes it's just common sense.

There are a few members of any given species who will always kill their young, regardless of circumstance. They are aberrations. But others who do so when they know that it's a really bad time to have offspring are not. The latter is more common than the former.

Click to expand...

The general regard of reproduction as a negative is an aberration. There's certainly no species where it's the norm.

Thrilla said:

you are basing your position on current price structures and mechanisms.... and that's a fatal flaw.
for instance, if the market opened up for insulin, we could have more than 2 companies who provide it ( 1 company, lilly, has a monoploy .. defined as more than 80% of market share).. insulin run about 50-55 bucks a vial ,wholesale... and we can't even blame pharmacies for the retail prices, as most sell insulin at a loss ( they recoup the loss through the sales of syringes, monitors,accessories etc)
you can thank your government for providing the monopoly... and thus, the prices... hooray for public medical policy and market manipulation!

Click to expand...

Are we now discussing the high cost of medical expenses in the US> If you look at countries with national health care their costs are not nearly as high. The US has helped raise the prices because of insurance companies and people wanting them to control their health care. The US is only best in health care when it comes to cost.