jenbobblehead Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 I forgot what i was going to say. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
austrya Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 I forgot what i was going to say. wtg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 In unrelated news, question 2 on the Mass ballot this year is:A YES VOTE would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty. A NO VOTE would make no change in state criminal laws concerning possession of marijuana. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 "way to go?" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 It would be preferable that all people have access to all health care items they need, but if there is no pharmacy in a given town, and the Christian no-rubber drugstore wanted to open a store, I'm fine with that. The townspeople would have better access to prescription drugs than they did before, and their contraceptive availability would not have changed either way.I think the "let the market take care of it" system breaks down where, for example, a Wal-Mart moves into an area and squeezes out any small pharmacies that were previously providing those services. What happens then if Wal-Mart decides not to fill those prescriptions? Yes, I realize the internet/mail-order option is still there, but you're adding another layer onto the process for people in those areas. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Yes, you are right. I admitted it above. yeah, sorry...i saw that after i posted. that said, i think the issue is more that it's harder to equate contraception with neccesary health care. i do think, that w/ STD's and AIDS, it does make the use of a condom a legitimate health issue. however, and i know they j.nick will correct me that we a biologicially wired to be unable to refuse to fuck, you still have the option of not having sex w/ someone you aren't 100% sure of being clean. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Yes, I realize the internet/mail-order option is still there, but you're adding another layer onto the process for people in those areas. how so? you are actually removing a layer in the fact they don't even have to physically leave their home. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 yeah, sorry...i saw that after i posted. that said, i think the issue is more that it's harder to equate contraception with neccesary health care. i do think, that w/ STD's and AIDS, it does make the use of a condom a legitimate health issue. however, and i know they j.nick will correct me that we a biologicially wired to be unable to refuse to fuck, you still have the option of not having sex w/ someone you aren't 100% sure of being clean. Sure, but if you view STDs and AIDS from a purely cold public policy perspective, and you say that those diseases and the fallout from them are expensive for the state, it's not just about putting the responsibility on the indivudual to sleep with someone that is 100% clean. Because the fallout doesn't just impact the indivudual who gets the STD. Especially if that individual doesnt have health insurance. Same with the seat belt laws. Sure, you can just say "if they dont want to wear a seatbelt, fuck em, they'll end up regretting it." The issue is that insurance companies regret it. Or hospital emergency rooms regret it. Etc. So it isnt too hard to come up with a public policy reason to require seatbelts. Or pharmacies to provide contraception, either. But, I said I wasn't going to argue for that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Sure, but if you view STDs and AIDS from a purely cold public policy perspective, and you say that those diseases and the fallout from them are expensive for the state, it's not just about putting the responsibility on the indivudual to sleep with someone that is 100% clean. Because the fallout doesn't just impact the indivudual who gets the STD. Especially if that individual doesnt have health insurance. Same with the seat belt laws. Sure, you can just say "if they dont want to wear a seatbelt, fuck em, they'll end up regretting it." The issue is that insurance companies regret it. Or hospital emergency rooms regret it. Etc. So it isnt too hard to come up with a public policy reason to require seatbelts. Or pharmacies to provide contraception, either. But, I said I wasn't going to argue for that. if you were, i'd say that comparing birth control to seat belts is kind of apples/oranges. you have a lot less control over getting into a traffic accident than who you sleep with and using a condom/getting tested together/jack and jill party when you do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted October 24, 2008 Author Share Posted October 24, 2008 yeah, sorry...i saw that after i posted. that said, i think the issue is more that it's harder to equate contraception with neccesary health care. i do think, that w/ STD's and AIDS, it does make the use of a condom a legitimate health issue. however, and i know they j.nick will correct me that we a biologicially wired to be unable to refuse to fuck, you still have the option of not having sex w/ someone you aren't 100% sure of being clean. Once again, can you point out where I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 if you were, i'd say that comparing birth control to seat belts is kind of apples/oranges. you have a lot less control over getting into a traffic accident than who you sleep with and using a condom/getting tested together/jack and jill party when you do. Yes, but if I were, I'd point out to you that it doesn't need to be apples/apples to justify legislating it from a public policy perspective. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Once again, can you point out where I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 WITH NO SHOES!My mom used to drive our numerous VW Beetles barefoot. They had this foot-shaped carpet-like thing you could glue to to the gas pedal to make it a more cozy experience. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Yes, but if I were, I'd point out to you that it doesn't need to be apples/apples to justify legislating it from a public policy perspective. need for legislation, maybe not...using it a basis of argument for legislation, kind of. really though, shouldn't it be apples/apples (or at least closer than condoms/seatbelts) if your using that as your grounds for similar legislation? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted October 24, 2008 Author Share Posted October 24, 2008 do you need a specific post or just a reminder of how you've used our propensity as humans to want to have sex as rationale for why abstinence isn't a viable alternative to abortion? i may have taken that to the extreme, but you've said something to that extent on more than one occasion. I have said that biologically, we are wired to reproduce, as is every living creature on this planet - what I never said, was that we have zero control over that impulse. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 i may have taken that to the extreme, but you've said something to that extent on more than one occasion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted October 24, 2008 Author Share Posted October 24, 2008 i may have taken that to the extreme, but you've said something to that extent on more than one occasion. Right, once again, you have completely misrepresented something I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 i don't like using condoms. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Right, once again, you have completely misrepresented something I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
myboyblue Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 i don't like using condoms.I DON'T NEED THEM!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
austrya Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 completely? mmmm...not really, but i'll remember that the next time you bring it up in your weekly attack on religion and/or abortion opposition. I believe he said it in the Mother Teresa thread in response to the whole NFP thing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 i don't like using condoms.Breeder! In my argument about adding another layer to the process, above, I was thinking specifically of things like morning-after pills, which are a lot less effective when you have to wait a week for them to arrive from drugstore.com. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 I DON'T NEED THEM!! I have a question about this, but it's probably not appropriate. Therefore, I'll wait until I'm a little drinky tonight and let it rip. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 NFP = no fucking pussy? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 need for legislation, maybe not...using it a basis of argument for legislation, kind of. really though, shouldn't it be apples/apples (or at least closer than condoms/seatbelts) if your using that as your grounds for similar legislation? Yeah probably. Still, I think a pretty compelling case could be made that the cost to the taxpayer of unwanted pregnancies is significant enough that the public interest would require it. Of course, that same logic would lead one to think that we should legislate the USE of condoms. And I am certainly not suggesting that. No, seriously. I am really not suggesting that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.