• 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
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh the bill is petty, alright, but THAT'S THE POINT.

See, there are already multiple petty bills in process AGAINST WOMEN...and some of them actually have a chance at passage.

The point so many are studiously missing is that YES, it is absurd and invasive to arbitrarily saddle people with completely irrelevant (and expensive, I'd add) requirements which inject the state into their personal medical decisions...all to score points with voters and funders whose politics come from the bronze age.

Let patients and their chosen medical professionals figure out important medical decisions, and keep the state out of folks' genitals already.
 
Last edited:
cmakaioz said:
Oh the bill is petty, alright, but THAT'S THE POINT.

See, there are already multiple petty bills in process AGAINST WOMEN...and some of them actually have a chance at passage.
Click to expand...
Realize that some people feel aborting a fetus is murder, that isn't petty. What's petty is the response... make men go through couciling before getting viagra.

For me personally - that's fine. I don't need viagra and hopefully it'll be OTC by the time I do need or want it. But maybe I won't want it. Getting counseling about viagra use is stupid as a retort. Most men would laugh at such a moronic requirement but if they needed it would probably talk to the counselor about their golf game, sports, their kids or grandkids or something else anyway. It's a waste of time and has no life or death impact whatsoever. That's the petty part. But hey, I'm game. Pass it. Just as it is. :lol:
 
Ockham said:
That's what the heartbeat bill required women to do. You're the one who brought in the "shameful"
Click to expand...

I never used the word shameful. Nice try.

I do point out your rather frequent use of logical fallacy, of that I take full blame.
Click to expand...

You brought up doctors in comparison. I showed how that comparison was flawed. You claimed my bringing up doctors was a red herring. Major fail on your part.
 
Redress said:
I never used the word shameful. Nice try.
Click to expand...
Ahh... another episode of the "literal game".

Redress said:
...stress and shame some one ....
Click to expand...
:lamo


Redress said:
You brought up doctors in comparison. I showed how that comparison was flawed. You claimed my bringing up doctors was a red herring. Major fail on your part.
Click to expand...
You claimed doctors had to be involved and were involved, no one claimed doctors were not involved, therefore your consistent use of logical fallacy. Epic fail on your part and really... shouldn't you know better by now?
 
Ockham said:
Realize that some people feel aborting a fetus is murder, that isn't petty.
Click to expand...

Adding on a completely unnecessary requirement, imposed through the force of the state, is petty. It doesn't actually stop anyone from getting an abortion (for those fundamentalists who simply can't stand the fact that they haven't yet managed to achieve totalitarian or theocratic rule); it just imposes an extraneous expense upon others without reference to the professional medical opinion of anyone actually involved.

I might prefer that car drivers be required to read a twenty-page pamphlet on consumerism and environmental sustainability every time they fill their car up at the gas station, but it would still be petty and vindictive for me to try to force that upon them by law.

Ockham said:
What's petty is the response... make men go through couciling before getting viagra.
Click to expand...

Oh, OK...so an invasive and heavy-handed state requirement which infantilizes men by implying that they haven't already carefully considered THEIR personal decisions is petty...but doing the same to women is just fine...OK, got it.

I'd much rather it be the case that NO ONE go around using ANYONE's access to medical procedures as a political football, but let's be absolutely clear... it's the Fox Chorus / Santorum / Conservative Culture Warriors who picked this fight. I for one sure as hell can't fault the targets for fighting back against the war on women.
 
Ockham said:
Ahh... another episode of the "literal game".

:lamo
Click to expand...

So you do not understand the difference between trying to shame some one, and something being shameful? Really? That is just....impressive.


You claimed doctors had to be involved and were involved, no one claimed doctors were not involved, therefore your consistent use of logical fallacy. Epic fail on your part and really... shouldn't you know better by now?
Click to expand...

Again, you brought up doctors, then you claimed doctors are red herrings. Keep trying, but you are not doing well.
 
Ockham said:
Realize that some people feel aborting a fetus is murder, that isn't petty.
Click to expand...

Why would any one care what peopel who do not even know what words mean think? Abortion is, by definition, not murder.
 
Redress said:
Why would any one care what peopel who do not even know what words mean think? Abortion is, by definition, not murder.
Click to expand...

It depends on who's definition you subscribe to.
 
Ockham said:
...
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.
Click to expand...
There is essentially zero incremental cost. However the point it makes is valuable for those that are allowed to via the method used. What is actually a big waste of my money is a bill requiring people seeking an abortion to undergo medical thesting procedures etc. that my insurance company will have to pay for.
 
Last edited:
cmakaioz said:
Adding on a completely unnecessary requirement, imposed through the force of the state, is petty. It doesn't actually stop anyone from getting an abortion (for those fundamentalists who simply can't stand the fact that they haven't yet managed to achieve totalitarian or theocratic rule); it just imposes an extraneous expense upon others without reference to the professional medical opinion of anyone actually involved.

I might prefer that car drivers be required to read a twenty-page pamphlet on consumerism and environmental sustainability every time they fill their car up at the gas station, but it would still be petty and vindictive for me to try to force that upon them by law.



Oh, OK...so an invasive and heavy-handed state requirement which infantilizes men by implying that they haven't already carefully considered THEIR personal decisions is petty...but doing the same to women is just fine...OK, got it.

I'd much rather it be the case that NO ONE go around using ANYONE's access to medical procedures as a political football, but let's be absolutely clear... it's the Fox Chorus / Santorum / Conservative Culture Warriors who picked this fight. I for one sure as hell can't fault the targets for fighting back against the war on women.
Click to expand...
So you are equating counseling a woman before she slaughters an unborn child to counseling a man before he has a chemically assisted erection? Interesting. Or is it the insistence on providing contraception? Again...equating a medical need to not providing people free birth control...interesting. I would be interested in knowing who all these 'anti-women' people are that are denying people the right to contraception. I must be missing it...I only see people discussing who should PAY for contraception...not whether or not women should USE them.

Me...Im fine with only providing erectile dysfunction meds to meet a medical need as prescribed by a doctor...just as oral contraceptives where required for a medical need should be prescribed. I work with an older gentleman who meets a doctor at the VA...they do actually require a visit with the doctor and a specialist before they prescribe.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
There is essentially zero incremental cost.
Click to expand...
As was pointed out to me earlier, this is probably connected to Obama Care and therefore would be incremental cost. I mean, if women's BC would be covered at no cost, I would think that the addition of men counciling and doctors visits would add incremental cost to the healthcare system since that would also be covered at no cost to the patient.

OhIsee.Then said:
However the point it makes is valuable for those that are allowed to via the method used. What is actually a big waste of my money is a bill requiring people seeking an abortion to undergo medical thesting procedures etc. that my insurance company will have to pay for.
Click to expand...
It's not a testing procedure (or maybe it is), the function actually is a requirement (as was done in the Oklahoma law) for the mother to listen and hear the baby's heart beat before the abortion takes place. I'm not sure what process does that whether it's an ultrasound or some other method... but yes, that would also be an additional cost just like men's viagra counseling.
 
Ockham said:
Bill introduced to regulate men's reproductive health

Word of note: This law would seriously impinge drugs like viagra which are allowed for use in the penal system by prisoners unless an exception was made.


Take the poll.... for or against or will you cop out and choose "Other"? :wink:
Click to expand...


this nonsense is a classic case of a hysterical harpy wasting the taxpayers' money with a publicity stunt

I live in Ohio, I will be sure to send a good sized check to whomever the GOP runs against this twit in her next election
 
I don't think women should have to have an annual exam and prescription to get birth control either.
 
TurtleDude said:
this nonsense is a classic case of a hysterical harpy wasting the taxpayers' money with a publicity stunt

I live in Ohio, I will be sure to send a good sized check to whomever the GOP runs against this twit in her next election
Click to expand...

Are you similarly motivated to donate and speak against even worse legislation aimed at women? If not...why?
 
cmakaioz said:
Are you similarly motivated to donate and speak against even worse legislation aimed at women? If not...why?
Click to expand...

Does the thousands my family has given to Planned Parenthood and the two summers of free labor I gave them count?
 
One thing always left out of the Viagra discussion is it's not just for the man it is also kind of important for the woman in his life too. I doubt any man takes Viagra to masturbate but then again who knows. I'm not on the stuff yet but I am getting older, maybe I should keep some on hand, kind of like a fire extinguisher, best to be prepared.
 
That's hilarious. The law is designed to show the ridiculousness of anti birth control laws that have been flirted with the last couple of years :lol


Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
Other: I don't support Viagra and Cialis being covered by insurance while birth control is not - both should be covered. I'm not offended by the bill and I applaud the sponsor for forcing lawmakers to discuss the inequity that currently exists. However, I do not support the bill actually being passed because two wrongs do not make a right.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Other: I don't support Viagra and Cialis being covered by insurance while birth control is not - both should be covered. I'm not offended by the bill and I applaud the sponsor for forcing lawmakers to discuss the inequity that currently exists. However, I do not support the bill actually being passed because two wrongs do not make a right.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that both Viagra/Cialis and birth control would be cheap enough that either one would fall withing the deductible and so be paid for by the individual anyway.

Wouldn't it? Just how expensive are those pills, anyway? Surely, there are generics available by now, maybe not for Cialis, but for the others.
 
Ockham said:
Bill introduced to regulate men's reproductive health

Word of note: This law would seriously impinge drugs like viagra which are allowed for use in the penal system by prisoners unless an exception was made.

Take the poll.... for or against or will you cop out and choose "Other"? :wink:
Click to expand...

I fully support this law because it 1. establishes legal precedent to ban abortion, and 2. discredits it's authors.

I hope these idiot lawmakers keep coming up with these sorts of laws. They help my cause tremendously and I think them.
 
Well anyways to be serious--being a man I was actually surprised to realize erectile dysfunction drugs are covered in the way they are. That being said, the difference between birth control and Viagra is birth control can solve many problems a woman has or help them, heavy bleeding, PCOS, ovarian cyst, serious hormone imbalances, etc. To my knowledge and I could be understanding this wrong, all these things are are boner pills. So, I don't think it should be a government requirement they be covered like birth control, but I would bet money with or without government intervention most insurers still cover stiffy supplements.
 
Newsflash...where oral contraceptives are required for medical concerns they ARE covered by insurance companies...even the now famous 'Georgetown' insurance program...and always were. Watch the actual testimony and you will see her state as much.
 
HAHA! Fair is Fair! How does it feel men to have something like this on the table? I hope it makes some men change their minds in reguards to what has been happening as of late:roll:
 
ChuckBerry said:
Ovulation and pregnancy are natural processes of a woman's body, no drugs or medical procedures are needed to correct them as deficiencies. Authors of the ultrasound bills are not arbitrarily restricting a woman's access to abortion, it was done from the principaled stance that a woman ought to be fully aware that the fetus she chooses to terminate is a living being.

Erectile dysfunction is a real problem for some men and it makes a mockery of the struggle some men have with this by using it as a political football. Men already have to be evaluated by their doctors to receive the prescription, so there is no medically or socially justifiable reason to play this game.

That said, I would wager about 95% of the ED drugs being sold are being used men that want to have more sex rather than to have sex at all. And with ED drugs being so easily available over the internet with no prescription, most men would not be affected by it whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Speaking of games? These types of pills are very popular these days at clubs and parties with young men and middle aged men:shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom