• 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:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Oh my gosh! You think the bill is intended to pass? The woman proposing the law wouldn't vote for it's passage?
I thought you were just considering the cost of having it run through the process in their legislature.
If one is consistent, you should vote for both or neither. This is obvious, right?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Oh my gosh! You think the bill is intended to pass?
Click to expand...
I don't know for sure what the purpse of the bill is. Is it just to make a point? Was it proposed as an activist type demonstration for easier abortions? Was it meant only to initiate further discussion? I'm not sure...

OhIsee.Then said:
The woman proposing the law wouldn't vote for it's passage?
Click to expand...
Depends on the actual purpose ... see the short list of possible purposes in my prior statement.
OhIsee.Then said:
I thought you were just considering the cost of having it run through the process in their legislature.
Click to expand...
When discussing cost, I was looking at the end result (assuming passage), and how it would impact Obama Care and shared out of pocket costs.
OhIsee.Then said:
If one is consistent, you should vote for both or neither. This is obvious, right?
Click to expand...
It's not that black and white. I can't seriously compare the gravity of the heartbeat bill which requires women to hear the heart beat of the fetus prior to abortion, with the same gravity and seriousness as men getting counseling before being prescribed viagra.
 
Kali said:
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:
Click to expand...
Sorry Kali...you are usually smarter than this. How does a medical dysfunction of a males sexual organ equate to contraceptives or slaughtering unborn children? You are precisely the kind of person they are pandering to with this type of proposed 'legislation.' I find it beyond comical that it is 'working' with some people. Easy I suppose when all you are playing to is ideology and emotion and not thinking reasoned rational people.
You are equating contraceptives used to NOT get pregnant and slaughtering an unborn child with a medical condition that causes some individuals to not be able to achieve an erection. Should your vagina ever give out and be nothing more than a 'hole' there might be a medical need to fix that and then you would have a valid comparison between THAT procedure and ED meds.

Me...I'm fine with them requiring a doctors prescription for such things...just as Im fine with ensuring insurance pays for required medical needs oral contraceptives for women where indicated (and in case you missed Flukes actually testimony she stated very clearly that Georgetowns insurance DOES cover medical needs oral contraceptives already and always did).
 
VanceMack said:
Sorry Kali...you are usually smarter than this. How does a medical dysfunction of a males sexual organ equate to contraceptives or slaughtering unborn children? You are precisely the kind of person they are pandering to with this type of proposed 'legislation.' I find it beyond comical that it is 'working' with some people. Easy I suppose when all you are playing to is ideology and emotion and not thinking reasoned rational people.
You are equating contraceptives used to NOT get pregnant and slaughtering an unborn child with a medical condition that causes some individuals to not be able to achieve an erection. Should your vagina ever give out and be nothing more than a 'hole' there might be a medical need to fix that and then you would have a valid comparison between THAT procedure and ED meds.

Me...I'm fine with them requiring a doctors prescription for such things...just as Im fine with ensuring insurance pays for required medical needs oral contraceptives for women where indicated (and in case you missed Flukes actually testimony she stated very clearly that Georgetowns insurance DOES cover medical needs oral contraceptives already and always did).
Click to expand...

First of all, I'm not sure ED is always a "disfunction". Pretty sure loss of erectile function is also a consequence of aging, which makes use of these drugs elective.

And they are used predominantly by the older men responsible for the latest rounds of anti abortion nonsense, so its kind of appropriate.

BOTH sides are playing games. BOTH sides think they are justified in doing so. ONE side started this nonsense.
 
Kali said:
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:
Click to expand...

How does it feel? It feels great to have these laws out there. I love it. All these idiot lawmakers wasting taxpayer money to help the pro-life cause. It's awesome.
 
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. I find this hard to believe, no prisoners should be allowed to have any of these drugs, but then this area needs reform, badly !


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

Other, of course...
Note that the liberals seem to care more about people than do the conservatives and libertarians...
"seem" is a key word.
At first light, it seems as if the liberals "over-care"...are going too far.....I do not know..
Will someone kindly tell the truth .......
 
What if...? said:
First of all, I'm not sure ED is always a "disfunction". Pretty sure loss of erectile function is also a consequence of aging, which makes use of these drugs elective.

And they are used predominantly by the older men responsible for the latest rounds of anti abortion nonsense, so its kind of appropriate.

BOTH sides are playing games. BOTH sides think they are justified in doing so. ONE side started this nonsense.
Click to expand...
But thats the point...it is in no way related one to the other. I am opposed abortions but also very much opposed to banning abortions. You however decide that the defense against killing an unborn child is to equate it to a male medical concern. That shows em! And people wonder why governments are so ridiculously dysfunctional.

Would it shock you to know that there are a fair amount of WOMEN out there that believe abortion is the slaughter of unborn children as well as those 'older men'?
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
God has given man a brain to invent and improve their life...True and man should use his noggin for more than just selfishness , or short-sightedness viagra is as God intended.
Click to expand...
BUT, for prisoners
for people who cannot afford, so society foots the bill ?
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, Jerry, its possible to have abortion illegal and the law enforced.
This would involve a police state that would make Nazi-Germany seem to be a bed of thorn-less roses..
Unemployment would also be solved, as we would need about 150 million more policemen..
Who would police the police ?
We do not need precedents, we just need some love and tolerance....common sense in my book.
 
Ockham said:
God has given man a brain to invent and improve their life... viagra is as God intended.
Click to expand...
So God made design errors and he gave us the skills to develop a patches to the errors. I see no limits in this.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
So God made design errors and he gave us the skills to develop a patches to the errors. I see no limits in this.
Click to expand...

Neither does God, which is why he destroyed the Tower of Babel and divided our languages.
 
Paschendale said:
I support satire as a form of political protest.
Click to expand...
Especially by paid satirists. Maybe not as effective when it is done by elected officials...but still...
 
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...

On a sidenote (since I already addressed the bigger overlying issue) - I am at a loss as to why prisoners need any such 'treatments' . . . :shrug:
 
VanceMack said:
Especially by paid satirists. Maybe not as effective when it is done by elected officials...but still...
Click to expand...

No. Engaging in political discourse does not require that it be one's profession. A barrier of entry like that is essentially censorship. You can argue that it didn't make its point, but speech is still free.
 
Paschendale said:
No. Engaging in political discourse does not require that it be one's profession. A barrier of entry like that is essentially censorship. You can argue that it didn't make its point, but speech is still free.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, and satire is often the best way of responding to a political idea. See also, sarcasm and irony.

I even use it myself now and again, even if I'm not as good as the masters: Colbert and Stewart.
 
Jerry said:
How does it feel? It feels great to have these laws out there. I love it. All these idiot lawmakers wasting taxpayer money to help the pro-life cause. It's awesome.
Click to expand...

This does nothing to help pro life. This law is primarily a jab at anti BC laws, not the hearbeat bill IMO of course.

VanceMack said:
Sorry Kali...you are usually smarter than this. How does a medical dysfunction of a males sexual organ equate to contraceptives or slaughtering unborn children? You are precisely the kind of person they are pandering to with this type of proposed 'legislation.' I find it beyond comical that it is 'working' with some people. Easy I suppose when all you are playing to is ideology and emotion and not thinking reasoned rational people.
You are equating contraceptives used to NOT get pregnant and slaughtering an unborn child with a medical condition that causes some individuals to not be able to achieve an erection. Should your vagina ever give out and be nothing more than a 'hole' there might be a medical need to fix that and then you would have a valid comparison between THAT procedure and ED meds.

Me...I'm fine with them requiring a doctors prescription for such things...just as Im fine with ensuring insurance pays for required medical needs oral contraceptives for women where indicated (and in case you missed Flukes actually testimony she stated very clearly that Georgetowns insurance DOES cover medical needs oral contraceptives already and always did).
Click to expand...

Your point is only really heard by those who believe BC is abortion

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
xpiher said:
Your point is only really heard by those who believe BC is abortion
Click to expand...

That's a strange concept - BC is abortion. Seems a very extreme position to take.
 
Paschendale said:
No. Engaging in political discourse does not require that it be one's profession. A barrier of entry like that is essentially censorship. You can argue that it didn't make its point, but speech is still free.
Click to expand...
Thats why I said 'especially'. I'm not sure...maybe I missed where I said she cant waste the taxpayers time and money to submit childish ideas in a legislative tantrum. Just that...well...since her notion isnt remotely related to what she is protesting and only connects with people already like minded, then she isnt very good at it and probably shouldnt quit her day job.
 
Ockham said:
That's a strange concept - BC is abortion. Seems a very extreme position to take.
Click to expand...

While I could be wrong i'm fairly certain that the joke law is a comparison to anti BC laws not the laws like heartbeat or sonogram

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
xpiher said:
This does nothing to help pro life. This law is primarily a jab at anti BC laws, not the hearbeat bill IMO of course.
Click to expand...

Viagra isn't a form of BC, so this law isn't even related to the BC/abortion issue at all, which is why we Conservatives are just sitting back having a good chuckle over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom