• 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!

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

Do Men Have the Right to Control Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

  • Total voters
    41
katiegrrl0 said:
The playing field is perfectly level. A man can wear a condom which will prevent pregnancy 90% or better. That is his opportunity. If a woman has to be afraid a man will not help support that child when born guess what will happen to the abortion rate it will double and with an attitude like yours I hope it goes up by 20 times.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that effective birth control methods are not also available to women? Of course you're not. You're "playing field is perfectly level" point is denied.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
The playing field is perfectly level. A man can wear a condom which will prevent pregnancy 90% or better. That is his opportunity. If a woman has to be afraid a man will not help support that child when born guess what will happen to the abortion rate it will double and with an attitude like yours I hope it goes up by 20 times.
Click to expand...

Wrong, we are talking about abortion. What if he wears a condom, and it fails? Your problem is you don't have a dog in this fight, lesbian; now do you? No you don't, not the slightest. Don't try to derail the thread, and deflect a valid point.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I understand all that.
The whole health care discussion is complicated and people take a lot of offense in what I say.
Mostly because they don't understand the relationship between prices and third party payment systems (like we have now).

It's an economics argument, involving theoretical realities, that plausibly could exist.
 
Removable Mind said:
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?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't eradicate anyone's particular benefits.
I'd hope that 1, the government doesn't mandate specific benefits, that they think I need and 2 insurance companies offer more and varying coverage options, with premiums that match the amount of benefits someone needs/wants.

Basically, we should be going back to statistically based risk pricing, with no government mandated benefits packages.
Not exactly absurd.
 
DiAnna said:
Well, that attitude certainly explains why you don't care about those of us who do. I guess I'm done here.
Click to expand...

You think I should have and pay for coverage, that includes benefits, that I could never, ever use and you call that, "not caring for those that do."
Good lord. :roll:
 
katiegrrl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not really discrimination though.
It's statistically based risk pricing.

They do it with car insurance, life insurance, basically every other insurance, although the factors the use to "discriminate" vary.
I don't have a problem paying more for certain types of insurance, if you can prove that insuring me, statistically costs more.
 
radcen said:
Are you saying that effective birth control methods are not also available to women? Of course you're not. You're "playing field is perfectly level" point is denied.
Click to expand...

I am saying that if the male is anti choice he should take measures to protect against pregnancy. Why would you expect women who are pro choice to use birth control. So the playing field is level. I would expect a woman who is anti choice to use birth control. I would expect men who don't care or are pro choice to do as they see fit. If a women is pro choice and doesn't care about having an abortion she may well not use anything in the way of contraceptives. That does leave it up to the anti choice male to do what he can. Why is that hard to understand?
 
American said:
Wrong, we are talking about abortion. What if he wears a condom, and it fails? Your problem is you don't have a dog in this fight, lesbian; now do you? No you don't, not the slightest. Don't try to derail the thread, and deflect a valid point.
Click to expand...
The failure rate is rather small. birth control pills and other options have failure rate as well. I am not deflecting anything. Why would a man expect a woman who is pro choice to use birth control pills. If the male fells so strongly about the potential fetus why does he not protect himself. I would see him as very foolish or not caring so much as he states.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I understand all that.
The whole health care discussion is complicated and people take a lot of offense in what I say.
Mostly because they don't understand the relationship between prices and third party payment systems (like we have now).

It's an economics argument, involving theoretical realities, that plausibly could exist.
Click to expand...
I have lived in nations with nationalized heath care and their care is better and the cost far less than the US.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not really discrimination though.
It's statistically based risk pricing.

They do it with car insurance, life insurance, basically every other insurance, although the factors the use to "discriminate" vary.
I don't have a problem paying more for certain types of insurance, if you can prove that insuring me, statistically costs more.
Click to expand...
Car insurance is based on driving record and age brackets. There is a difference. An insurance company should do life insurance in a way that there is no weighing of the premium for men who on the average die earlier.
 
in fact men need to control what they have.:lol:
 
katiegrrl0 said:
I am saying that if the male is anti choice he should take measures to protect against pregnancy. Why would you expect women who are pro choice to use birth control. So the playing field is level. I would expect a woman who is anti choice to use birth control. I would expect men who don't care or are pro choice to do as they see fit. If a women is pro choice and doesn't care about having an abortion she may well not use anything in the way of contraceptives. That does leave it up to the anti choice male to do what he can. Why is that hard to understand?
Click to expand...
An articulate response, but still incorrect. As long as both people are participating in the sex act, birth control is an equal and shared responsibility. She can easily choose to not have sex if he refuses protection, not to mention the myriad of other effective and pro-active birth control options available to women. Maybe she does want a kid, but pro- or anti-abortion as an option is irrelevant at that point. In fact, unless they're in a committed relationship, and have discussed having kids in detail, then not having kids should be the presumed default position for both. It is fully rude and irresponsible for a woman to have unprotected sex and presume that the man will be ok with having and supporting a kid that he may not want.
 
radcen said:
An articulate response, but still incorrect. As long as both people are participating in the sex act, birth control is an equal and shared responsibility. She can easily choose to not have sex if he refuses protection, not to mention the myriad of other effective and pro-active birth control options available to women. Maybe she does want a kid, but pro- or anti-abortion as an option is irrelevant at that point. In fact, unless they're in a committed relationship, and have discussed having kids in detail, then not having kids should be the presumed default position for both. It is fully rude and irresponsible for a woman to have unprotected sex and presume that the man will be ok with having and supporting a kid that he may not want.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
What you fail to take into consideration is that abortion is a form of birth control. Therefore any woman who is willing to have an abortion has a birth control idea in place. She has a plan for an unwanted pregnancy. She will have an abortion if that happens. This is not true in all cases but it may will be a plan for some women. She does not necessarily have the opinion that the fetus means anything as an anti choice person might. So if you are an anti choice male you presume to much in thinking she is on birth control. If she does decide that she wants a child and the male has not worn a condom he will suffer the consequences of his inaction. I do realize there may be condom failure but no contraception is foolproof unless you are practicing abstinence.
For me if I were a male and was anti choice or did not want a child i would use a condom. This is not to say that I think it would be good practice for any women who are sexually active to use BC of whatever sort.
I am just trying to make the point that if the man does not do what he can to prevent pregnancy, how can he say he is anti choice. He's hoping the woman is on BC and she may well not be.
The bolded line is true but he should be aware that this can happen and do all he can to prevent the predicament that a child might be.
On another forum a poster said he is anti choice but never used a condom. How sane is that? How much sense does that make. He would have a fit if she had an abortion but yet he didn't take any responsibility for the outcome. Is this person really anti choice? By his inaction I would certainly say he is not.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
If you are a male which i am guessing you are, and you are anti choice, you should wear a condom. If you do not and a woman has an abortion because of that failure on your part you are responsible because you did not do all you could to prevent it. That's what I have said throughout this thread in a nutshell.
A pro choice woman or any women for that matter may not be using any form of birth control. You can not take her word for it. Wearing a condom would make sense because of your views. If you think that is wrong headed of me to think it foolish for a man not to wear one please tell me where you think that's wrong.
Click to expand...

You're going off on a tangent and making me repeat myself.

I'll take this as your surrender, thank you. If you want to continue the conversation, go back and address what I actually said.
 
Henrin said:
Sorry. Anyway, lets say it again.

Military is for the protection of the rights and liberties of the people as a whole and more to the point the countries survival. What is comparing to is something meant to only pay for what someone wants or needs.

better?
Click to expand...

What rights and liberties have been protected by our involvement in Iraq? We lost rights and liberties since Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't want to get off on the war argument here, though I will be happy to on a separate thread. My morals, part of which I derive from my faith, do not support the US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US military was sent for reason other than a direct defense of the U.S. and in doing so over 100,000 people have died so far - and my money helped pay for those deaths. So there is a direct correlation with the argument in this thread.

US citizens gained no rights or liberties as a result of Iraq or Afghanistan. We have lost right and liberties since our invasion of those countries. Our presence there is morally wrong, but I pay my taxes to support what I am morally opposed to.

Oh, and those people in the military? They get free birth control - and you're paying for it.
 
Daktoria said:
You're going off on a tangent and making me repeat myself.

I'll take this as your surrender, thank you. If you want to continue the conversation, go back and address what I actually said.
Click to expand...
Repeating a post you wrote would still say nothing worth reading.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
Repeating a post you wrote would still say nothing worth reading.
Click to expand...

...only because of your god complex. You should be grateful I'm even pointing it out.
 
That would be "Goddess", would it not? And it's not polite to point.
 
Daktoria said:
...only because of your god complex. You should be grateful I'm even pointing it out.
Click to expand...
You think far to much of yourself and have and do on other forums as well. You still haven't answered the question I asked on a different forum over a year ago.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
I have lived in nations with nationalized heath care and their care is better and the cost far less than the US.
Click to expand...

The U.S. still existed though.

We spend more on health care per person than any other nation. If the only systems left introduced artificial price controls, would people be less inclined to risk debt to invent new procedures and medicines? Be honest, have you even given this line of thinking a second thought? These other countries are benefiting from our capitalist system.
 
Perspective: I have no complaints about our healthcare system: because it's been about 5 years since I last had to see a DR.

No involvement, no ailments = no knowledge.

Hardly something to base overall judgement on - get sick, spend your time going to the dr's all the time and so on - and then report back and tell me how it was.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
I have lived in nations with nationalized heath care and their care is better and the cost far less than the US.
Click to expand...
What nation was that? What was your experience? And in what way was the care better? I ask these questions because I dont believe you. I live a few miles from the Cleveland Clinic, one of the finest hospitals on the planet. So I cant help but be curious as to where you think you could go to get 'better' care than you can get there.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Perspective: I have no complaints about our healthcare system: because it's been about 5 years since I last had to see a DR.

No involvement, no ailments = no knowledge.

Hardly something to base overall judgement on - get sick, spend your time going to the dr's all the time and so on - and then report back and tell me how it was.
Click to expand...

get sick, spend time in one system, then report back just as ignorant as before because you are only privy to a single system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom