The Revenge of Sandra Fluke

[AUFAN78 4,130]

" Drag a $100 bill through a trailer camp and there's no telling what you will find " - James Carvill, on Paula Jones.

Where's the outrage ?

Seems the "boys club" were on quite the roll. I'm quite certain there were more playing this twisted little game. Slick Willie, The Donald, Rushbo and Carvill. What a group.

[AUDub 11,784]

" Drag a $100 bill through a trailer camp and there's no telling what you will find " - James Carvill, on Paula Jones.

Where's the outrage ?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA dude I was 10.

Solid attempt at a deflection though

What does YOUR age have to do w/ anything ?

I was speaking of the fake feminists, who ran to Sandra's defense, but let Paula , Monica and all of Bill's sexual targets twist in the wind, as Hillary's Nuts and Sluts ( yep, that's what it was called ) campaign set out to destroy anyone who Bill had slept with who dared to come forward.

But thanks for showing your ignorance a well as your age. I see they go hand in hand on this topic.

So I should be ok with "slut shaming" because Carville and the Clintons did it too. Duly noted.

You whip out a quote from 20 years ago, so long ago that I was too young to know or care, and for that I should excuse Rush. You're a riot.

[AURaptor 1,137]

So I should be ok with "slut shaming" because Carville and the Clintons did it too. Duly noted.

It was fine w/ the Clintons did it, but ( and now , by your own admission, YOU called Sandra a slut ! :roflol ) but not when Rush does it ?

See ? You JUST made my case for me !!! You're side are hypocrites ! Phonies ! 100% BSers !

[AUDub 11,784]

So I should be ok with "slut shaming" because Carville and the Clintons did it too. Duly noted.

It was fine w/ the Clintons did it, but ( and now , by your own admission, YOU called Sandra a slut ! :roflol ) but not when Rush does it ?

See ? You JUST made my case for me !!! You're side are hypocrites ! Phonies ! 100% BSers !

There's a reason "slut shaming" is in scare quotes, jackass.

But yeah, "my" side.

You're a master in the art of weaseling.

[AURaptor 1,137]

There's zero weaseling here. I just owned you, and you're not man enough to admit it.

[AUDub 11,784]

There's zero weaseling here. I just owned you, and you're not man enough to admit it.

Keep telling yourself that.

Are you willing to admit he called her a slut yet or not?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Was Carville joking ?

[AUDub 11,784]

Was Carville joking ?

I'm not a mind reader. You should ask him.

You can make the claim that Rush was just kidding until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that he viciously attacked her character for the better part of three days. And that included calling her a slut. Yes, he did halfheartedly apologize after the fact, but that does not change the fact that his behavior was abhorrent.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Technically , he was right. As unflattering as it sounds. She wanted others to pay for her to have sex.

She should pay for her own damn contraception

[AUDub 11,784]

Technically , he was right. As unflattering as it sounds. She wanted others to pay for her to have sex.

She should pay for her own damn contraception

And there it is. We've gone from denial to justification.

Birth control is not an indicator of promiscuity.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Technically , he was right. As unflattering as it sounds. She wanted others to pay for her to have sex.

She should pay for her own damn contraception

And there it is. We've gone from denial to justification. :laugh:/>

Birth control is not an indicator of promiscuity.

But it is the responsibility of the individual

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Technically , he was right. As unflattering as it sounds. She wanted others to pay for her to have sex.

She should pay for her own damn contraception

And there it is. We've gone from denial to justification. :laugh:/>

Birth control is not an indicator of promiscuity.

But it is the responsibility of the individual

Which individual would that be? The male or the female? The whole point of Sandra Fluke's speech was that women were being denied contraceptive coverage in their health plans even when contraceptives were necessary for medical reasons such as cysts.

[AUDub 11,784]

Technically , he was right. As unflattering as it sounds. She wanted others to pay for her to have sex.

She should pay for her own damn contraception

And there it is. We've gone from denial to justification.

Birth control is not an indicator of promiscuity.

But it is the responsibility of the individual

Which individual would that be? The male or the female? The whole point of Sandra Fluke's speech was that women were being denied contraceptive coverage in their health plans even when contraceptives were necessary for medical reasons such as cysts.

And there's some hypocrisy here. Last time I checked, a lot of these plans cover viagra.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Technically , he was right. As unflattering as it sounds. She wanted others to pay for her to have sex.

She should pay for her own damn contraception

And there it is. We've gone from denial to justification. :laugh:/>

Birth control is not an indicator of promiscuity.

But it is the responsibility of the individual

Which individual would that be? The male or the female? The whole point of Sandra Fluke's speech was that women were being denied contraceptive coverage in their health plans even when contraceptives were necessary for medical reasons such as cysts.

And there's some hypocrisy here. Last time I checked, a lot of these plans cover viagra.

Precisely. A man can get his Viagra paid for so he can have sex but a female can't get her contraceptives paid for so she can have sex, prevent pregnancy, and regulate her menstrual cycle thus easing pain.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Sorry nature threw some a curve ball, but it's not up to others to pay for their issues.

Be it contraception or viagra.

Pay extra if you want those benefits.

[AUDub 11,784]

Sorry nature threw some a curve ball, but it's not up to others to pay for their issues.

Be it contraception or viagra.

Pay extra if you want those benefits.

Do you oppose prescribing such medicines for, say, endometriosis?

[AURaptor 1,137]

As long as they pay for it

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Technically , he was right. As unflattering as it sounds. She wanted others to pay for her to have sex.

She should pay for her own damn contraception

And there it is. We've gone from denial to justification. :laugh:/>

Birth control is not an indicator of promiscuity.

But it is the responsibility of the individual

Which individual would that be? The male or the female? The whole point of Sandra Fluke's speech was that women were being denied contraceptive coverage in their health plans even when contraceptives were necessary for medical reasons such as cysts.

And there's some hypocrisy here. Last time I checked, a lot of these plans cover viagra.

Precisely. A man can get his Viagra paid for so he can have sex but a female can't get her contraceptives paid for so she can have sex, prevent pregnancy, and regulate her menstrual cycle thus easing pain.

I'm perfectly ok with Viagra and Cialis being off the covered list.

[AUDub 11,784]

As long as they pay for it

Should these excluded organizations be allowed to refuse to pay for a hysterectomy because they object on religious grounds?

[TitanTiger 21,064]

As long as they pay for it

Should these excluded organizations be allowed to refuse to pay for a hysterectomy because they object on religious grounds?

Are hysterectomies generally given as a birth control method?

[AUDub 11,784]

As long as they pay for it

Should these excluded organizations be allowed to refuse to pay for a hysterectomy because they object on religious grounds?

Are hysterectomies generally given as a birth control method?

Birth control is an incidental side effect, not that we usually think of it in that way. In Ireland, until quite late in the 20th century, when a woman was advised a hysterectomy by her gynecologist, she had to seek permission for the operation from her parish priest. This permission wasn't always given.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

As long as they pay for it

Should these excluded organizations be allowed to refuse to pay for a hysterectomy because they object on religious grounds?

Are hysterectomies generally given as a birth control method?

Birth control is an incidental side effect, not that we usually think of it in that way. In Ireland, until quite late in the 20th century, when a woman was advised a hysterectomy by her gynecologist, she had to seek permission for the operation from her parish priest. This permission wasn't always given.

Right. And there is a difference in something that is medically necessary but has an incidental side effect vs something that is used for the express purpose of that effect.

For instance, a doctor may induce labor early because of a health issue with the mother carrying the baby to full term. This creates risk for the child and may even result in death, though they make every effort to save both. That is fundamentally different than a D&E where they just rip the baby's body apart limb from limb with metal tongs, even if death is the end result of both.

That distinction may not mean much to you, but it does to some. And it's relevant when you're trying to involve them in the procurement of that thing.

[AUDub 11,784]

*SNIP*

Right. And there is a difference in something that is medically necessary but has an incidental side effect vs something that is used for the express purpose of that effect. That distinction may not mean much to you, but it does to some. And it's relevant when you're trying to involve them in the procurement of that thing.

So you do not believe they should be allowed to refuse prescription of these medications to treat something like endometriosis on religious grounds. Good.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

*SNIP*

Right. And there is a difference in something that is medically necessary but has an incidental side effect vs something that is used for the express purpose of that effect. That distinction may not mean much to you, but it does to some. And it's relevant when you're trying to involve them in the procurement of that thing.

So you do not believe they should be allowed to refuse prescription of these medications to treat something like endometriosis on religious grounds. Good.

Not even the Catholic Church would refuse such a treatment, if medically necessary:

Medical treatments are neither Catholic or not Catholic, per se. What makes their use moral or immoral depends on Catholic moral principles, however. The principle one to consider in these two cases is the Principle of Double Effect. Assuming there is not a better medicine or treatment which does not produce an evil effect, a treatment which has two effects, one good and one bad, may be employed to achieve a good therapeutic result (health, improved health) provided: 1) the action is morally good, or at least indifferent, 2) the bad effect is not directly intended, merely tolerated, 3) the good effect is caused as directly as the bad effect (i.e. the bad is not the means to the good), 4) the good effect is proportionately good to compensate for the bad effect.

So, for example, in the case of endometriosis, IF the best treatment to reduce the tissue growth is to regulate the cycle with a pill which is normally used to prevent conception, 1) the act to reduce the tissue is good in itself, 2) health is intended, not the contraceptive effect, 3) the good effect is as immediately caused as the bad effect, not through it, and 4) the expected good results of reduced pain, health etc. is a proportionate good. It therefore can be justified.

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=493570&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

But of course, that is not what they were being asked to do.

[AUDub 11,784]

*SNIP*

Right. And there is a difference in something that is medically necessary but has an incidental side effect vs something that is used for the express purpose of that effect. That distinction may not mean much to you, but it does to some. And it's relevant when you're trying to involve them in the procurement of that thing.

So you do not believe they should be allowed to refuse prescription of these medications to treat something like endometriosis on religious grounds. Good.

Not even the Catholic Church would refuse such a treatment, if medically necessary:

Medical treatments are neither Catholic or not Catholic, per se. What makes their use moral or immoral depends on Catholic moral principles, however. The principle one to consider in these two cases is the Principle of Double Effect. Assuming there is not a better medicine or treatment which does not produce an evil effect, a treatment which has two effects, one good and one bad, may be employed to achieve a good therapeutic result (health, improved health) provided: 1) the action is morally good, or at least indifferent, 2) the bad effect is not directly intended, merely tolerated, 3) the good effect is caused as directly as the bad effect (i.e. the bad is not the means to the good), 4) the good effect is proportionately good to compensate for the bad effect.

So, for example, in the case of endometriosis, IF the best treatment to reduce the tissue growth is to regulate the cycle with a pill which is normally used to prevent conception, 1) the act to reduce the tissue is good in itself, 2) health is intended, not the contraceptive effect, 3) the good effect is as immediately caused as the bad effect, not through it, and 4) the expected good results of reduced pain, health etc. is a proportionate good. It therefore can be justified.

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=493570&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

But of course, that is not what they were being asked to do.

But they have in the past. Remember, Humanae Vitae is less than half a century old. And I'm sure there are a few of the more ridiculous religions out there that still do.

A hypothetical: What if His Holiness released an encyclical announcing "Birth control medication and hysterectomies for any reason are now considered immoral," do you believe these religious objections should still stand?