Hypocrisy

[ClimbingPanther]

why'd it take you so long to respond, you workin' or sumpin?

 

[Dechristo]

Now we abolish abortion, worldwide. Let's just do the right thing and make sure that those babies get homes and place those children with people making more than poverty level income.

 

 

So, those below the American poverty level worldwide don't get to raise their own kids?

[ClimbingPanther]

kevbone, you sure know how to start a thread that will go the distance

[archenemy]

And just a tiny note of an ugly reality:

Most forms of birth control are not 100%. So please don't jump to the conclusion that every unplanned pregnancy is a direct result of irresponsible behavior. (And please don't say that is a justification for abortion blah blah blah--I am only pointing out that accidents do happen-even to responsible adults).

 

 

Sorry, Arch. For a very, very small percentage of women/couples your point may hold true. But there are options available when others fail or are ignored. Some of those to the right of me are against even these types of contraception - after all, the pill doesn't prevent conception, only implantation - to whom I say: get a fucking life! Sex is fun. Not just for procreation. People are horny. Accidents happen. Options are available for up to 72 hours that don't involve killing. And even then, there's always...adoption.

Hey, I'm with you on this. I keep this on hand even though I have a very reliable birthcontrol method I depend on. But, did you know that this Plan B is $50? And I am sure you have been reading about the lawsuits women have had to bring in order to force pharm. workers to fill it for them. These are fights we shouldn't have, and these are expenses some women don't have $50 laying around for. And, if you do not keep up on current affairs, you may not even know about this. Believe it or not, getting birth control info is not as easy as you'd think for a whole class of folks. I think anyone who volunteers or works at womens shelters can tell you how suprising it is. Furthermore, this also doesn't address young girls who have even less access to money, education, etc. And they are less comfortable going up to a counter and asking for this--just think how tough it is for young boys to buy their first condoms. At least they don't have to ask a pharma. worker for it! And I don't know if they will even give Plan B to kids under 18.

And just to keep clear--I am not trying to justify not taking responsibility for one's actions. But the problem of unwanted pregnancy is complicated, and I'd like to see all the issues faced so that some day, there are no more unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.

 

Poor little things....getting embarrassed and out $50 bucks.....probably cheaper and less traumatic to have an abortion

Gosh, I wonder why conservatives get a bad rap for not being compassionate.

And what about the taking responsibility bullshit for men? I'd like to meet one woman over the age of 30 who expects 100% condom use from partners and has never had to go through 1) requesting that he please use one 2) saying yes, no one likes to use them but quit your fucking whining and put it on. And that conversation is also not comfortable for a young girl (or someone more shy, feminine, or sensitive)--especially the first few times. I realize you don't care, but this is reality. And if your next kid is a daughter, these are the things you are going to have to face with her.

 

AE....I don't think my compassion, or lack thereof is the issue. You seem to imply with your post that a good argument for legalized abortion is that Plan B, is both expensive and embarrassing to request. I was simply pointing out that getting an abortion would be both more expensive, and likely far more emotionally difficult than requesting, and paying for Plan B...pretty much a bullshit argument if you ask me.

 

I am not making an argument for legalized abortion. I don't have to--it is already legal. All I am doing is trying to bring some of the underlying issues that contribute to unwanted pregnancies into this discussion. I'd like to see many more aspects of this problem talked about--and more understanding and middle ground found between the opposing sides. That's it.

[archenemy]

Oh, and I do think that your compassion, my compassion, and society's compassion for women facing these choices is an issue. Our compassion for others is one of the most important things we have and share as human beings.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Oh, and I do think that your compassion, my compassion, and society's compassion for women facing these choices is an issue. Our compassion for others is one of the most important things we have and share as human beings.

 

I think you are making too many excuses for some of these situations, and Eric was raising good points, albeit bluntly.

 

 

[archenemy]

I also think he raises good points--some with which I agree.

I don't want to make excuses, only share some of what really happens with women and young girls.

[archenemy]

Oh, and most insurance doesn't cover Plan B. They'll cover Viagra, but not Plan B.

 

I believe this is because with Viagra you are attempting to correct something that doesn't work. With birth control you are trying to stop something that is natural. Similar to the fact that insurance generally doesn't, for instance, cover Rogaine to stop balding.

I would really like to believe that, but it just isn't true.

 

First of all, most ED is a natural side effect of aging. Second of all, birth control is a normal activity that most countries like ours follow. (And that's good--it'd be tough to support 8 kids for every family). I think if you read a little on the incredible battle that it took for women to get birth control pills covered, you'll see that there is more than just your theory at work here. There have also been amazing battles that women fought just to get something back to normal again. For example, the legal fights over getting an implant after having a breast removed due to cancer were bitter. Isn't this simply returning something back to normal?

 

I wish I could remember the name of the book I read that researched the battles fought over different coverages. Issues that only affected women were far more common and took much much longer to win than issues that only affected men. I am happy to see that trend starting to change.

 

You mean like the current disparity between the funding available for breast and prostate cancer research?

Prostate cancer is a slow growing cancer that usually affects men in their geriatric years. Breast cancer affects younger women and is often deadly at a faster rate. It makes more sense to put more money into the second group. (as a side note: my father has prostate cancer, my mother has breast cancer. I can say that emotionally they are both devastating. I don't wish to dismiss the problem in one group; but if we don't have money to fix everything, it makes sense to help the group that will benefit the most. In this case, getting another 40 yrs of life is worth more than another 10.)

 

[TREETOAD]

150 billion to kill people in Iraq and no money to heal people here pretty weird ain't it?

[JayB]

Oh, and most insurance doesn't cover Plan B. They'll cover Viagra, but not Plan B.

 

I believe this is because with Viagra you are attempting to correct something that doesn't work. With birth control you are trying to stop something that is natural. Similar to the fact that insurance generally doesn't, for instance, cover Rogaine to stop balding.

I would really like to believe that, but it just isn't true.

 

First of all, most ED is a natural side effect of aging. Second of all, birth control is a normal activity that most countries like ours follow. (And that's good--it'd be tough to support 8 kids for every family). I think if you read a little on the incredible battle that it took for women to get birth control pills covered, you'll see that there is more than just your theory at work here. There have also been amazing battles that women fought just to get something back to normal again. For example, the legal fights over getting an implant after having a breast removed due to cancer were bitter. Isn't this simply returning something back to normal?

 

I wish I could remember the name of the book I read that researched the battles fought over different coverages. Issues that only affected women were far more common and took much much longer to win than issues that only affected men. I am happy to see that trend starting to change.

 

You mean like the current disparity between the funding available for breast and prostate cancer research?

Prostate cancer is a slow growing cancer that usually affects men in their geriatric years. Breast cancer affects younger women and is often deadly at a faster rate. It makes more sense to put more money into the second group. (as a side note: my father has prostate cancer, my mother has breast cancer. I can say that emotionally they are both devastating. I don't wish to dismiss the problem in one group; but if we don't have money to fix everything, it makes sense to help the group that will benefit the most. In this case, getting another 40 yrs of life is worth more than another 10.)

 

I agree that this is the reason why we spend more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research, and this rationale makes sense to me - but it doesn't support the contention that the claim that women's health issues have been the subject of an intentional, wide-ranging, and systematic neglect because no one cares about women, we value women's lives less and always have, the self-serving medico-patriarchy can't look beyond it's own interests, etc.

 

I think in most cases men simply made better "animal models" for most medical research because no one had to worry about their drug candidate turning into the next thalidomide if they included women of child bearing age in the drug study, hormonal fluctations that might complicate the analysis, etc.

 

Sins of omission versus sins of commission.

 

 

 

 

[kevbone]

kevbone, you sure know how to start a thread that will go the distance

 

 

Gee.....thanks....

[kevbone]

150 billion to kill people in Iraq and no money to heal people here pretty weird ain't it?

 

Sounds a little hypocritical don’t it?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

150 billion to kill people in Iraq and no money to heal people here pretty weird ain't it?

 

Sounds a little hypocritical don’t it?

 

Nope.

[archenemy]

Oh, and most insurance doesn't cover Plan B. They'll cover Viagra, but not Plan B.

 

I believe this is because with Viagra you are attempting to correct something that doesn't work. With birth control you are trying to stop something that is natural. Similar to the fact that insurance generally doesn't, for instance, cover Rogaine to stop balding.

I would really like to believe that, but it just isn't true.

 

First of all, most ED is a natural side effect of aging. Second of all, birth control is a normal activity that most countries like ours follow. (And that's good--it'd be tough to support 8 kids for every family). I think if you read a little on the incredible battle that it took for women to get birth control pills covered, you'll see that there is more than just your theory at work here. There have also been amazing battles that women fought just to get something back to normal again. For example, the legal fights over getting an implant after having a breast removed due to cancer were bitter. Isn't this simply returning something back to normal?

 

I wish I could remember the name of the book I read that researched the battles fought over different coverages. Issues that only affected women were far more common and took much much longer to win than issues that only affected men. I am happy to see that trend starting to change.

 

You mean like the current disparity between the funding available for breast and prostate cancer research?

Prostate cancer is a slow growing cancer that usually affects men in their geriatric years. Breast cancer affects younger women and is often deadly at a faster rate. It makes more sense to put more money into the second group. (as a side note: my father has prostate cancer, my mother has breast cancer. I can say that emotionally they are both devastating. I don't wish to dismiss the problem in one group; but if we don't have money to fix everything, it makes sense to help the group that will benefit the most. In this case, getting another 40 yrs of life is worth more than another 10.)

 

I agree that this is the reason why we spend more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research, and this rationale makes sense to me - but it doesn't support the contention that the claim that women's health issues have been the subject of an intentional, wide-ranging, and systematic neglect because no one cares about women, we value women's lives less and always have, the self-serving medico-patriarchy can't look beyond it's own interests, etc.

 

I think in most cases men simply made better "animal models" for most medical research because no one had to worry about their drug candidate turning into the next thalidomide if they included women of child bearing age in the drug study, hormonal fluctations that might complicate the analysis, etc.

 

Sins of omission versus sins of commission.

 

 

 

Well, it really is a gender issue.

 

And it works both ways. For example, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that men often have to sue the companies they work for in order to get paternity leave. This is a gender disparity issue that exists in the world of our "benefits package" due to cultural norms that have been allowed to live long past their time. The genders get treated differently and unfairly in many situations--and that is a sin of commission in my opinion.

[archenemy]

Oh, and men make better "animal models" for other men. The medical field is now discovering--surprise--women's and men's bodies respond differently to some drugs. The most important class of these drugs IMO is pain management drugs. Women happen to respond differently to many pain meds than men, and those meds have found to be less effective for women than men. And think, all those years of telling pts that its "just in your head".

 

Don't want to produce birth defects? Don't test your drug on women who are pregnant. I have been on a medication (short term--under one year) that I had to not only be on birth control but I also had to agree that if I did get pregnant, I would be assured that I would have a child with birth defects and could not hold my doc liable. If they can do that to administer a med, they can do that to test one. It's really not that difficult.

[JayB]

Oh, and most insurance doesn't cover Plan B. They'll cover Viagra, but not Plan B.

 

I believe this is because with Viagra you are attempting to correct something that doesn't work. With birth control you are trying to stop something that is natural. Similar to the fact that insurance generally doesn't, for instance, cover Rogaine to stop balding.

I would really like to believe that, but it just isn't true.

 

First of all, most ED is a natural side effect of aging. Second of all, birth control is a normal activity that most countries like ours follow. (And that's good--it'd be tough to support 8 kids for every family). I think if you read a little on the incredible battle that it took for women to get birth control pills covered, you'll see that there is more than just your theory at work here. There have also been amazing battles that women fought just to get something back to normal again. For example, the legal fights over getting an implant after having a breast removed due to cancer were bitter. Isn't this simply returning something back to normal?

 

I wish I could remember the name of the book I read that researched the battles fought over different coverages. Issues that only affected women were far more common and took much much longer to win than issues that only affected men. I am happy to see that trend starting to change.

 

You mean like the current disparity between the funding available for breast and prostate cancer research?

Prostate cancer is a slow growing cancer that usually affects men in their geriatric years. Breast cancer affects younger women and is often deadly at a faster rate. It makes more sense to put more money into the second group. (as a side note: my father has prostate cancer, my mother has breast cancer. I can say that emotionally they are both devastating. I don't wish to dismiss the problem in one group; but if we don't have money to fix everything, it makes sense to help the group that will benefit the most. In this case, getting another 40 yrs of life is worth more than another 10.)

 

I agree that this is the reason why we spend more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research, and this rationale makes sense to me - but it doesn't support the contention that the claim that women's health issues have been the subject of an intentional, wide-ranging, and systematic neglect because no one cares about women, we value women's lives less and always have, the self-serving medico-patriarchy can't look beyond it's own interests, etc.

 

I think in most cases men simply made better "animal models" for most medical research because no one had to worry about their drug candidate turning into the next thalidomide if they included women of child bearing age in the drug study, hormonal fluctations that might complicate the analysis, etc.

 

Sins of omission versus sins of commission.

 

 

 

Well, it really is a gender issue.

 

And it works both ways. For example, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that men often have to sue the companies they work for in order to get paternity leave. This is a gender disparity issue that exists in the world of our "benefits package" due to cultural norms that have been allowed to live long past their time. The genders get treated differently and unfairly in many situations--and that is a sin of commission in my opinion.

 

I was addressing the reasons for the historical disparity. The guidelines were updated 15-20 years ago, and any basis for the victim-of-medical-neglect narrative has long since passed.

 

Example:

 

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/rph/7-2.html

 

 

[JayB]

Oh, and most insurance doesn't cover Plan B. They'll cover Viagra, but not Plan B.

 

I believe this is because with Viagra you are attempting to correct something that doesn't work. With birth control you are trying to stop something that is natural. Similar to the fact that insurance generally doesn't, for instance, cover Rogaine to stop balding.

I would really like to believe that, but it just isn't true.

 

First of all, most ED is a natural side effect of aging. Second of all, birth control is a normal activity that most countries like ours follow. (And that's good--it'd be tough to support 8 kids for every family). I think if you read a little on the incredible battle that it took for women to get birth control pills covered, you'll see that there is more than just your theory at work here. There have also been amazing battles that women fought just to get something back to normal again. For example, the legal fights over getting an implant after having a breast removed due to cancer were bitter. Isn't this simply returning something back to normal?

 

I wish I could remember the name of the book I read that researched the battles fought over different coverages. Issues that only affected women were far more common and took much much longer to win than issues that only affected men. I am happy to see that trend starting to change.

 

You mean like the current disparity between the funding available for breast and prostate cancer research?

Prostate cancer is a slow growing cancer that usually affects men in their geriatric years. Breast cancer affects younger women and is often deadly at a faster rate. It makes more sense to put more money into the second group. (as a side note: my father has prostate cancer, my mother has breast cancer. I can say that emotionally they are both devastating. I don't wish to dismiss the problem in one group; but if we don't have money to fix everything, it makes sense to help the group that will benefit the most. In this case, getting another 40 yrs of life is worth more than another 10.)

 

I agree that this is the reason why we spend more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research, and this rationale makes sense to me - but it doesn't support the contention that the claim that women's health issues have been the subject of an intentional, wide-ranging, and systematic neglect because no one cares about women, we value women's lives less and always have, the self-serving medico-patriarchy can't look beyond it's own interests, etc.

 

I think in most cases men simply made better "animal models" for most medical research because no one had to worry about their drug candidate turning into the next thalidomide if they included women of child bearing age in the drug study, hormonal fluctations that might complicate the analysis, etc.

 

Sins of omission versus sins of commission.

 

 

 

Well, it really is a gender issue.

 

And it works both ways. For example, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that men often have to sue the companies they work for in order to get paternity leave. This is a gender disparity issue that exists in the world of our "benefits package" due to cultural norms that have been allowed to live long past their time. The genders get treated differently and unfairly in many situations--and that is a sin of commission in my opinion.

 

Is treating men and women differently always unfair in every situation?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Oh, and most insurance doesn't cover Plan B. They'll cover Viagra, but not Plan B.

 

I believe this is because with Viagra you are attempting to correct something that doesn't work. With birth control you are trying to stop something that is natural. Similar to the fact that insurance generally doesn't, for instance, cover Rogaine to stop balding.

I would really like to believe that, but it just isn't true.

 

First of all, most ED is a natural side effect of aging. Second of all, birth control is a normal activity that most countries like ours follow. (And that's good--it'd be tough to support 8 kids for every family). I think if you read a little on the incredible battle that it took for women to get birth control pills covered, you'll see that there is more than just your theory at work here. There have also been amazing battles that women fought just to get something back to normal again. For example, the legal fights over getting an implant after having a breast removed due to cancer were bitter. Isn't this simply returning something back to normal?

 

I wish I could remember the name of the book I read that researched the battles fought over different coverages. Issues that only affected women were far more common and took much much longer to win than issues that only affected men. I am happy to see that trend starting to change.

 

You mean like the current disparity between the funding available for breast and prostate cancer research?

Prostate cancer is a slow growing cancer that usually affects men in their geriatric years. Breast cancer affects younger women and is often deadly at a faster rate. It makes more sense to put more money into the second group. (as a side note: my father has prostate cancer, my mother has breast cancer. I can say that emotionally they are both devastating. I don't wish to dismiss the problem in one group; but if we don't have money to fix everything, it makes sense to help the group that will benefit the most. In this case, getting another 40 yrs of life is worth more than another 10.)

 

I agree that this is the reason why we spend more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research, and this rationale makes sense to me - but it doesn't support the contention that the claim that women's health issues have been the subject of an intentional, wide-ranging, and systematic neglect because no one cares about women, we value women's lives less and always have, the self-serving medico-patriarchy can't look beyond it's own interests, etc.

 

I think in most cases men simply made better "animal models" for most medical research because no one had to worry about their drug candidate turning into the next thalidomide if they included women of child bearing age in the drug study, hormonal fluctations that might complicate the analysis, etc.

 

Sins of omission versus sins of commission.

 

 

 

Well, it really is a gender issue.

 

And it works both ways. For example, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that men often have to sue the companies they work for in order to get paternity leave. This is a gender disparity issue that exists in the world of our "benefits package" due to cultural norms that have been allowed to live long past their time. The genders get treated differently and unfairly in many situations--and that is a sin of commission in my opinion.

 

Is treating genders differently always unfair in every situation?

 

Will this not become moot (in terms of drug research) as pharmacogenomics becomes the norm? Excepting the pregnancy angle, of course.

[kevbone]

150 billion to kill people in Iraq and no money to heal people here pretty weird ain't it?

 

Sounds a little hypocritical don’t it?

 

Nope.

 

 

I knew you were going to say that.

 

 

[Stefan]

Then there is this statement:

 

If you have nuclear weapons, then you have the intention to kill innocent children. A nuclear weapon does not discriminate.

 

I am still trying to find why those people who believe in pro life also believe in having nuclear weapons.

[kevbone]

Then there is this statement:

 

If you have nuclear weapons, then you have the intention to kill innocent children. A nuclear weapon does not discriminate.

 

I am still trying to find why those people who believe in pro life also believe in having nuclear weapons.

 

Or better yet…..pro lifers who also believe in the death penalty. That does not make sense.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Then there is this statement:

 

If you have nuclear weapons, then you have the intention to kill innocent children. A nuclear weapon does not discriminate.

 

I am still trying to find why those people who believe in pro life also believe in having nuclear weapons.

 

Or better yet…..pro lifers who also believe in the death penalty. That does not make sense.

 

'pro-life' is a euphemism designed to make the position more desirable and clearly "right". Ditto for "pro-choice", whose proponents at one point actually called the position "pro-abortion".

 

the true terms probably should be a neutral (sans connotatioins) version of "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion".

 

 

[rob]

I wish I had a nuke so I crater this thread.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I wish I had a nuke so I crater this thread.

 

I concur. please start a new thread so we can move on.

[JayB]

Then there is this statement:

 

If you have nuclear weapons, then you have the intention to kill innocent children. A nuclear weapon does not discriminate.

 

I am still trying to find why those people who believe in pro life also believe in having nuclear weapons.

 

And this wasn't true of volleys of arrows sent over fortified walls, sieges, catapults, cannonballs, artillery, fire, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc?