• 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
Removable Mind said:
You are completely disconnected about how our form of government works. If you didi really have a say...I bet the way government might be different. Dream on!
Click to expand...

that is you opinion.. an opinion I do not share.

now what i do not have is control... but i have a say.. just little ol me over here in my neck of the woods ( which is also your necks of the woods.. i'm in Liberty Hill).. and i get my little tiny piece of the say pie.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
There is a lot that I would like to have a say in and don't. Why do i pay toward military at all when I do not believe in that. I do and i don't complain. As a nation why do people pay for education when they may not have children. Why does a person who lives in a rural area with no road access pay road taxes. But we all do.
Click to expand...

You should have a say, you're required to pay for it.
That's supposed to be the whole democratic republic thing.

Having a say, doesn't necessarily mean people will listen to you.
 
Thrilla said:
that is you opinion.. an opinion I do not share.

now what i do not have is control... but i have a say.. just little ol me over here in my neck of the woods ( which is also your necks of the woods.. i'm in Liberty Hill).. and i get my little tiny piece of the say pie.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right.
 
74% no.

This line of attack should work well for the GOP...:lol:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You should have a say, you're required to pay for it.
That's supposed to be the whole democratic republic thing.

Having a say, doesn't necessarily mean people will listen to you.
Click to expand...

Your elected representatives have a say...YOU don't.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm aware of that, but covering maintenance medication is still, not an insurable event.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. If someone has prescription insurance, maintenance medications such as thyroid, high blood pressure, cholestrial, inhalers, allergy, birth control... all prescription medications are included. And they should be. The public at large has no business deciding what kind of medication another individual is "allowed" to have; that's between patient and doctor.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Actually attackers and parasites are extremely natural and, in a state of nature, you could certainly argue they are beneficial.
Click to expand...

Some are, some aren't. You're kind of hedging.


But we don't exist in a state of nature, therefore there are other considerations. Same with pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do, and civilization doesn't change biological function. A growing ZEF is what's supposed to happen in the uterus. It's why it's there.

Any other "considerations" aren't scientific, but preferential.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
If so why does insurance pay for childbirth?
Click to expand...

its a major medical expense that does not occur very often... and not all insurance policies cover all aspects of pregnancy.. prenatal care sometimes isn;t covered, some post natal care isn't covereed, prenatal vitamins aren't covered by some.. etc..etc..etc.

he's talking about maintenance medication... and he's right, it's only been very recently considered an insurable event.

think of your car... are oil changed covered by your insurance?.. nope, just major repairs that do not happen during the normal operation of the vehicle....( they don't insure wear and tear either).
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You should have a say, you're required to pay for it.
That's supposed to be the whole democratic republic thing.

Having a say, doesn't necessarily mean people will listen to you.
Click to expand...
That's true so in ways we agree. I just pay the taxes and where it goes doesn't really matter they will waste it anyway. No matter who is in office.
 
DiAnna said:
Yes, it is. If someone has prescription insurance, maintenance medications such as thyroid, high blood pressure, cholestrial, inhalers, allergy, birth control... all prescription medications are included. And they should be. The public at large has no business deciding what kind of medication another individual is "allowed" to have; that's between patient and doctor.
Click to expand...

That doesn't flow with the purpose of insurance.
Medications needed to immediately treat a loss, would make sense, but medications related to maintenance represents a definite loss to the insurance formula.
It doesn't make any sense from the insurers standpoint to pay for that.
 
Being male/female has nothing to do with it. Men will never know what bearing a child feels like, but all men were once fetuses.

Making abortion into an issue of "control" is also misguided, IMO. If women demonstrated more control over their own bodies to begin with, abortion wouldn't be so much of an issue. The vast majority of the time, an unplanned pregnancy is not the same as an unavoidable pregnancy.
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
Yes, it is. If someone has prescription insurance, maintenance medications such as thyroid, high blood pressure, cholestrial, inhalers, allergy, birth control... all prescription medications are included. And they should be. The public at large has no business deciding what kind of medication another individual is "allowed" to have; that's between patient and doctor.
Click to expand...

an insurance policy not covering a medication doesn't mean the patient isn't allowed to take it... it just means they have to pay for it themselves.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Stupid state mandates.
I mean, childbirth is a purposeful medical condition and isn't an illness.

Quite crazy if you ask me.
Now complications from childbirth, could be an insurable event.
Click to expand...
But most people of a certain age want insurance to pay for child birth. They do pay for that. So why not pay for abortions as well?
 
Harshaw said:
Some are, some aren't. You're kind of hedging.
Click to expand...

Not really. In a state of nature, keeping life expectancy short is crucial to keeping the planet inhabitable and helping to sustain cycles that allow everything else to live.

Yes, we do, and civilization doesn't change biological function. A growing ZEF is what's supposed to happen in the uterus. It's why it's there.

Any other "considerations" aren't scientific, but preferential.
Click to expand...

And parasites are supposed to kill you. Are you going to let them?

Biological function is not more "correct" than preference. It's just the default. The default is not inherently better or worse than anything else. There's no reason why just because it's the "default" means it's "good." The two have nothing to do with each other.

By the way, birth is also something that kept life expectancy short. It was (and in many places still is) the leading killer of women.
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
Your elected representatives have a say...YOU don't.
Click to expand...

sure we do...

besides an indirect say through voting, we also have the right to petition guaranteed us by the US Constitution.


and you say i'm disconnected from our government system?..sheesh
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That doesn't flow with the purpose of insurance.
Medications needed to immediately treat a loss, would make sense, but medications related to maintenance represents a definite loss to the insurance formula.
It doesn't make any sense from the insurers standpoint to pay for that.
Click to expand...

So...if you have diabetes...too bad for you, huh? If health insurance worked as you opine...most people would be in financial ruin.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
But most people of a certain age want insurance to pay for child birth. They do pay for that. So why not pay for abortions as well?
Click to expand...

Well, I disagree with it, because that's not the purpose of insurance.
I mean, it sounds nice of paper, but in reality, it's part of the reason that insurance premiums are so high in the first place.

Should we force life insurance companies, to write policies, for people with terminal illnesses?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That doesn't flow with the purpose of insurance.
Medications needed to immediately treat a loss, would make sense, but medications related to maintenance represents a definite loss to the insurance formula.
It doesn't make any sense from the insurers standpoint to pay for that.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad that my prescription insurance company doesn't agree with you.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That doesn't flow with the purpose of insurance.
Medications needed to immediately treat a loss, would make sense, but medications related to maintenance represents a definite loss to the insurance formula.
It doesn't make any sense from the insurers standpoint to pay for that.
Click to expand...
Different insurances work differently. Some are against costs incurred like health care.
 
Removable Mind said:
So...if you have diabetes...too bad for you, huh? If health insurance worked as you opine...most people would be in financial ruin.
Click to expand...

You're coming from a reality that doesn't exist.
Changes like that to the insurance market, changes the effects of pricing in the consumer market.
All else can not be the same, in that scenario.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Well, I disagree with it, because that's not the purpose of insurance.
I mean, it sounds nice of paper, but in reality, it's part of the reason that insurance premiums are so high in the first place.

Should we force life insurance companies, to write policies, for people with terminal illnesses?
Click to expand...

Actually, according to your definition of health insurance...let's not have any at all.

Harry, your wrong about the purpose of health insurance.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Well, I disagree with it, because that's not the purpose of insurance.
I mean, it sounds nice of paper, but in reality, it's part of the reason that insurance premiums are so high in the first place.

Should we force life insurance companies, to write policies, for people with terminal illnesses?
Click to expand...
It is the purpose of health insurance. It may not be the purpose of fire insurance but it is the sole purpose of health insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom