Your disagreement with my view is noted. You might note that really, my post makes it very clear that I was ignorant about the other use of contraceptives when I posted. Having a better understanding of that, I can see why people would want that. I would also like to note that your post is slightly difficult to read, due to a lack of punctuation. That aside, I believe that the one view I expressed in my earlier post was misunderstood. I was trying to say that:
1) I did not know other uses for contraceptives other than preventing unwanted pregnancy, and was asking for answers.
2) If the people in favor of the government funding contraceptives had only wanted them to prevent unwanted pregnancies, it seems that they had cheaper (as in free) alternatives for that.
You'll note I didn't mention testicular cancer at all. I could be wrong, but it seems like your "ripping an argument apart" mostly consisted of arguing against things I was not saying.
"Finally, sorry gay men as you can't biologically have children it doesn't matter if you have penis or gonad issues, if you can live with it - no treatment."
Are there contraceptives for men? All i was talking about was birth control, and you turned it into health insurance for genitals regarding people who weren't having children and people who can't have children. I'm not really looking for an argument, but answers to questions.
I'd like to preface my question by saying that I don't believe it is ever okay to call someone a slut. I believe that Rush Limbaugh's approach is wrong, and has hurt the viewpoint he represented by his unacceptable behavior.
That being said, the article above talks about contraceptives that have nothing to do with birth control. Could someone enlighten me as to the other uses, or reasons, I guess for contraceptives? My view about government financed contraceptives is that if the sole reason is for birth control, doesn't the couple having sex have the option of not potentially impregnating the lady during sex? Or the use of condoms? If the only reason for gov't paid contraceptives is to facilitate recreational sex, then does it not stand to reason the government should subsidize, if not finance other recreational activities such as golf, videogames, or parasailing? Perhaps my logic is wrong, and if it is, than would someone be so kind as to show me where I went astray. Thank you.
Recent Comments
Your disagreement with my view is noted. You might note that really, my post makes it very clear that I was ignorant about the other use of contraceptives when I posted. Having a better understanding of that, I can see why people would want that. I would also like to note that your post is slightly difficult to read, due to a lack of punctuation. That aside, I believe that the one view I expressed in my earlier post was misunderstood. I was trying to say that:
1) I did not know other uses for contraceptives other than preventing unwanted pregnancy, and was asking for answers.
2) If the people in favor of the government funding contraceptives had only wanted them to prevent unwanted pregnancies, it seems that they had cheaper (as in free) alternatives for that.
You'll note I didn't mention testicular cancer at all. I could be wrong, but it seems like your "ripping an argument apart" mostly consisted of arguing against things I was not saying.
"Finally, sorry gay men as you can't biologically have children it doesn't matter if you have penis or gonad issues, if you can live with it - no treatment."
Are there contraceptives for men? All i was talking about was birth control, and you turned it into health insurance for genitals regarding people who weren't having children and people who can't have children. I'm not really looking for an argument, but answers to questions.
That being said, the article above talks about contraceptives that have nothing to do with birth control. Could someone enlighten me as to the other uses, or reasons, I guess for contraceptives? My view about government financed contraceptives is that if the sole reason is for birth control, doesn't the couple having sex have the option of not potentially impregnating the lady during sex? Or the use of condoms? If the only reason for gov't paid contraceptives is to facilitate recreational sex, then does it not stand to reason the government should subsidize, if not finance other recreational activities such as golf, videogames, or parasailing? Perhaps my logic is wrong, and if it is, than would someone be so kind as to show me where I went astray. Thank you.