Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting bill proposed by the female Democrat. I'm all for it, and there should be a companion bill as well regarding women wanting abortions, stated thusly;
Make at least two office visits to a doctor.
Swear on the Bible that she will not have unprotected sex.
Present signed proof of permission from the father
You down ladies?
Well I dont think we have a choice since the companion bills have reached over 192 pertaining to requirements for women to receive abortions, including consults with doctors prior to abortion, submitting to and viewing vagina ultrasounds, waiting periods, extreme clinic standards, hospital privileges for doctors, mandatory perinatal hospice information. And in the not too distance past women did have to have permission from their husbands to get a script for birth control.
So being there are and have been so many bills being introduced pertaining to government intrusion into women's personal and private medical issues already the question should be why aren't you gentlemen down with inserting some of those same or equivalent intrusions into men's medical issues?
Not if there is no equivalent, and there is no male equivalent to pregnancy, no matter how one tries to twist it.
Viagra is a different issue, women can also have sexual dysfunction problems that can be treated with medication. Seems those conditions could be comparable but pregnancy is a completely different matter.
Equivalent is not the factor here. Its medical issues and procedures in general. The mere reality that no one thinks twice about inserting the government nose in women's health issues with restrictions, permissions, conditions and hoops to jump thru but they seem to have a problem with inserting similar government restrictions, permissions, conditions and hoops to jump thru when it is men's personal health issues.
Technically, both issues are not medically equivilent. Additionally, those receiving meds for ED would tend to be men age 50+; this cohort is far lower risk for promiscuous behavior and engaging in unprotected sex.
I would call the "bill" a reducto ad absurdum attempt that grossly failed.
What has age or promiscuity risk to do with restricting medical procedures?
Oh, wait, yeah it all has to do with punishment.
Well I dont think we have a choice since the companion bills have reached over 192 pertaining to requirements for women to receive abortions, including consults with doctors prior to abortion, submitting to and viewing vagina ultrasounds, waiting periods, extreme clinic standards, hospital privileges for doctors, mandatory perinatal hospice information. And in the not too distance past women did have to have permission from their husbands to get a script for birth control.
So being there are and have been so many bills being introduced pertaining to government intrusion into women's personal and private medical issues already the question should be why aren't you gentlemen down with inserting some of those same or equivalent intrusions into men's medical issues?
So you want to make it even worse for women?
Should a woman have to go through a gauntlet for some hormone replacement meds? Women just have more "female" medical issues than men normally, all through life, that are unrelated to pregnancy. Men usually just get their problems later in life - prostate, etc. If you intrude on men's health you must expand the intrusions for women as well to include medical conditions.
Get attention for the abortion issues elsewhere. Agreed the overreach is wrong, but not the way to go.
Should a woman have to go through a gauntlet for some hormone replacement meds? Women just have more "female" medical issues than men normally, all through life, that are unrelated to pregnancy. Men usually just get their problems later in life - prostate, etc. If you intrude on men's health you must expand the intrusions for women as well to include medical conditions.
Get attention for the abortion issues elsewhere. Agreed the overreach is wrong, but not the way to go.
Whooosh.
The entire point is there should not be any of this type of government intrusion in to private healthcare issues.
Have all the restrictive bills related to women's health issues made anything worse for men? No. You do not have to expand health care intrusions.
Whooosh.
The entire point is there should not be any of this type of government intrusion in to private healthcare issues.
Have all the restrictive bills related to women's health issues made anything worse for men? No. You do not have to expand health care intrusions.
Hmm, but that is what the bills will do- to men with medical conditions.
I see it this way, if my sister or daughter wanted an abortion I would not like her to be subjected to the restrictions and intrusions. The answer to me would not be to make my husband or father have to go through it as well to get a relatively simple medical condition treated.
Hmm, but that is what the bills will do- to men with medical conditions.
I see it this way, if my sister or daughter wanted an abortion I would not like her to be subjected to the restrictions and intrusions. The answer to me would not be to make my husband or father have to go through it as well to get a relatively simple medical condition treated.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
This bill introduction is really a satire of sorts to make people think about the lunacy of all the silly unnecessary and unfounded intrusions into women's health care, specifically abortion, that the lawmakers waste energy on. Sometimes in order to gain peoples attention they have to be able to identify with the recipient of such intrusions. What the bill will do is raise awareness for many people. Help them come to the realization that this is already being done in women's health care.
If women must get intrusive exams, counseling, fill out a pile of forms and have waiting periods to get a legal, private and personal medical procedure, regardless of what that procedure is, why should it be different for men.
If women who want abortions to can be forced by the government to undergo invasive ultrasound procedures and faith-based "counseling," I don't see why men shouldn't have to undergo comprehensive testing before receiving boner pills.
Yes , because we all know that taking a pill to help get an erection is the moral and medical equivalent of an invasive medical procedure that ends a human life.
Yes , because we all know that taking a pill to help get an erection is the moral and medical equivalent of an invasive medical procedure that ends a human life.
The debate is not the equivalency or morality of the private, personal medical condition. Weather you or I believe it is a human life or a blob of cells does not matter. The fact is abortion is a legal medical procedure just as erectile dysfunction medications are legal medications. The government has no right to infringe punitive and unnecessary obstacles based on legislators own feelings of morality and judgement in order for a patient to receive a legal medical procedure or prescription of any sort.
Yes , because we all know that taking a pill to help get an erection is the moral and medical equivalent of an invasive medical procedure that ends a human life.
Or, you know, two pills that prompt a late period as is the case with most abortions when women are able to get prompt care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
