• 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 you support this law which regulates men's erections?

Do you support the bill in the article?

  • I'm a man: I'm fine with this waste of time/money

    Votes: 5 14.3%
  • I'm a man: I find this offensive and a "tit for tat" useless bill

    Votes: 16 45.7%
  • I'm a man: I support this bill

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • I'm a woman: I'm fine with this waste of time/money

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • I'm a woman: I find this offensive and a "tit for tat" useless bill

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm a woman: I support this bill

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Other: Explain

    Votes: 9 25.7%

  • Total voters
    35
Sure it includes BC pills, and flu shots, and polio vaccines... all as God intended. The question is, why is government involving themselves?

That is kinda the point being raised by this. Why should women be forced to undergo unneccessary medical procedures? And once you go down that route, it needs to be fair and if women can be subject to it, so should men.
 
That is kinda the point being raised by this. Why should women be forced to undergo unneccessary medical procedures? And once you go down that route, it needs to be fair and if women can be subject to it, so should men.

Abortion =/= BC Pills.

Though I disagree with the "heartbeat bill," comparing opponents of abortion to this is demonstrating an incorrect view of the opposition to abortion.
 
Last edited:
I voted other because it would be a good thing to make sure that taking Viagra would not kill someone, that's a safety issue, but stupid if his wife has to testify that he cant get an erection, that part is wrong, we should be taking the mans word and not dragging him through terrible embarrassment in order to get a prescription.
 
That is kinda the point being raised by this. Why should women be forced to undergo unneccessary medical procedures? And once you go down that route, it needs to be fair and if women can be subject to it, so should men.

That's actually an anti point, ie., tit for tat. Unfortunately for women, they have to carry the baby. A Dr. already prescribes viagra, therefore such a script is given under Doctors care. Take that into account with the rest of biological facts such as sperm counts in males over 50, ability to father children, the number of children born to men > 50. Why didn't the law also include a rectal exam and maybe also require internet pictures of men's junk on facebook? Sure that silly - but that's the purpose of this bill. Some women don't like the requirement so how best can women get back at the men...

To me, this laughable method to teach men a lesson first will fail miserably, and second is a fraudulent waste of tax payer money to even write the bill let alone submit it for consideration. The pettiness and immaturity as to the "We'll show those men" purpose is beneath contempt and certainly tarnishes what little respect Congress has left.
 
These ignorant comparisons to abortion are really starting to just get to the level of pure desperation and are quite sad. Maybe when men want to kill humans with their erections will it be equal.
 
Yes, the point is that being against abortion has nothing to do with being against women.

And this has nothing to do with what I said. I pointed out that if women can be forced to undergo unneccesary medical treatments, then by fairness so should men.
 
That's actually an anti point, ie., tit for tat. Unfortunately for women, they have to carry the baby. A Dr. already prescribes viagra, therefore such a script is given under Doctors care. Take that into account with the rest of biological facts such as sperm counts in males over 50, ability to father children, the number of children born to men > 50. Why didn't the law also include a rectal exam and maybe also require internet pictures of men's junk on facebook? Sure that silly - but that's the purpose of this bill. Some women don't like the requirement so how best can women get back at the men...

To me, this laughable method to teach men a lesson first will fail miserably, and second is a fraudulent waste of tax payer money to even write the bill let alone submit it for consideration. The pettiness and immaturity as to the "We'll show those men" purpose is beneath contempt and certainly tarnishes what little respect Congress has left.


Ummmm...doctors who perform abortions are doctors. Therefore it is done under a doctors care. Try again.
 
Ummmm...doctors who perform abortions are doctors. Therefore it is done under a doctors care. Try again.

I'm talking about the steps taken before the actual abortion.
 
Yay I can't wait for "The Federal Boner Agency" to come to frutation. I think I will just move out of the country if this is the way America is going to start heading.
 
I'm talking about the steps taken before the actual abortion.

A doctor has to approve the abortion. It is done by doctors. There is no lack of doctors care.
 
Yup, it's crappy politics coming from a crappier state senator from the crappiest city in the US. Btw, it's crap.
 
A doctor has to approve the abortion. It is done by doctors. There is no lack of doctors care.

You don't seem to know what the Heartbeat bill says. For instance, in the Oklahoma bill, it requires a woman who wants an abortion to hear the heartbeat of the fetus prior to the abortion being performed. So back to the point, the point of this additive bill for men, is a petty excuse to get back at men who have signed onto and are wanting to pass a law where women must hear the heartbeat prior to the abortion.

You're continued statement about a doctor approving, or doctors care is irrelevant... Neither I nor anyone else has stated a doctor is NOT involved.
 
Isn't erectile dysfunction God's way of saying, No hard feelings?
 
Isn't erectile dysfunction God's way of saying, No hard feelings?

facepalm-300x240.jpg
 
You don't seem to know what the Heartbeat bill says. For instance, in the Oklahoma bill, it requires a woman who wants an abortion to hear the heartbeat of the fetus prior to the abortion being performed. So back to the point, the point of this additive bill for men, is a petty excuse to get back at men who have signed onto and are wanting to pass a law where women must hear the heartbeat prior to the abortion.

You're continued statement about a doctor approving, or doctors care is irrelevant... Neither I nor anyone else has stated a doctor is NOT involved.

Hey look, uneccesary medical procedure designed to stress and shame some one excercising their constitutional right. If you can do it to women, you can do it to men.

You brought up doctor care.
 
Hey look, uneccesary medical procedure designed to stress and shame some one excercising their constitutional right. If you can do it to women, you can do it to men.
So listening to their own fetus is "shameful". :lamo

You brought up doctor care.
Yes I never claimed doctors were not involved, so that's a red herring from you. Got it.
 
Perhaps the people in this state should stop electing legislators that act like children.
 
A doctor has to approve the abortion. It is done by doctors. There is no lack of doctors care.

Actually.....

I didn't see a doctor at all until I was on the table, and only then for about 5 minutes. The nurses, PAs, and NAs handled every single step up to actually turning on the suction (the nurse was even the one who inserted the tube...not to get too graphic). The doctor took a quick look at the sonogram, confirmed the tube was in the right spot, turned on the machine, waited about 45 seconds, checked the tube, turned off the machine, took off his gloves, and left the room.

He had little to do with the process and I'm willing to bet the time he DID spend was only out of procedural requirement. My follow-up was done with a NA two weeks later, as well.
 
I understand the rationale behind these kinds of bills, but in the end, they're just a waste of time and money. There are better ways to make a point.
 
So listening to their own fetus is "shameful". :lamo

I will take "twisting Words" for 1000 Alex.

Yes I never claimed doctors were not involved, so that's a red herring from you. Got it.

So now you are blaming me for your bringing doctors into the discussion. Interesting...
 
I will take "twisting Words" for 1000 Alex.
That's what the heartbeat bill required women to do. You're the one who brought in the "shameful"

So now you are blaming me for your bringing doctors into the discussion. Interesting...
I do point out your rather frequent use of logical fallacy, of that I take full blame.
 
Back
Top Bottom