100% Effective

I had to laugh when I heard this soundbite. My mind went back to when I was 16 or so and started going out with girls. My Mom told me either spend 25 cents at the drug store or give her an aspirin. Naturally, I thought aspirin birth control was some cool, old school thing I never heard about but then she threw in the punch line. Same as this guy. Naturally the talking head MSNBC Cosmo chick is aghast.
Foster Friess: In my day, women "used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

I think somebody wasted their youth when it was the time to learn things like the difference between efficient and effective.

Never said I actually used this method and I doubt my Mother did either but the idea being illustrated in both cases is if you're going to jump into the proverbial gene pool do so responsibly and protect yourself otherwise, keep your legs closed or don't unleash the trouser snake. It's called personal responsibility and this gentleman, like most of us who still believe in personal responsibility, is naturally discredited and dismissed as some kind of loon. Personal responsibility means people having the liberty to make their own choices and the obligation to live with the consequences. Sadly most of the sheeple have a built in aversion to personal responsibility. The mantras of my country are now 1. It's not my fault. 2. It's not fair. A once strong, free and independent people now prefer to let George Soros and Barack Obama take care of them. Any student of history can tell you how this is going to end but we don't teach history anymore outside discussions of the evil imperialist, capitalists, the inequities of capitalism and democracy and how everyone is a victim and the compassionate application of tyranny (uh...I mean government) will solve all the problems.

Unfortunately, there's a whole lot of people out there who are intent on making sure there's only one way to be "responsible" and deal with the consequences; the way that they've already determined to be right for everybody based on what some old white dude says some ancient book of dubious relevance or accuracy says should happen.

Kills me that some women's group mouthpiece wants him to apologize for saying that. What in the world is offensive about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

the idea being illustrated in both cases

---

Really, you too? And I thought you'd be responsible enough to use a dictionary.

No, the main problem is actually the hypocrisy. If only instead of preaching, these self-proclaimed conservatives start matching their words with deeds and stop mooching from the government but become self-reliant it'll all be fine and peachy. The reality, as demonstrated in recent studies, is that they are instead somewhat delusional - they don't even realize they taking from the government social programs and claim to be self sufficient at the same time as they are heavily using the dole. May be if those conservative politicians can grow a pair and actually cut some of the 'fat' despite the cost of not being elected, now that's what I'll call a good start.

And then there are all those priests impotent to do their job and convince their sheep to be responsible, abstinent and not use contraception, no surprise they want to blame their failure on the government. Last I checked Jesus never blamed the government, and it used to be a little bit more tyrannic and unaccountable than the one americans chose themselves.

So, here's my solution - spending those 25 cents on a mirror.

The implication is that if only women would keep their legs together .... Us poor men just cannot seem to catch a break with all these legs wide open women out there. It is a very offensive suggestion to me, and one not worthy of a gentleman.

James.

But, of course, it's their fault, after all it's in the Bible:

Quote:

---

And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

---

Amen Brother!

James.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Unfortunately, there's a whole lot of people out there who are intent on making sure there's only one way to be "responsible" and deal with the consequences; the way that they've already determined to be right for everybody based on what some old white dude says some ancient book of dubious relevance or accuracy says should happen.

---

Nice try but I'm not an evangelical and I've not made it a religious discussion. I'm simply someone who believes in a person's right to make their own decisions (good or bad) and assume responsiblity for the consequences. Ridiculously old fashioned I know but I think once the government starts making all the choices for us we're little more than farm animals queuing up a trough a couple times a day to wait for whatever scraps the Nanny State Tryrants have decided to throw us.

FWIW, it doesn't matter if you and I are firm believers in contraception or not. Devout Catholics have religious prohibition against contraception and the government has less than ZERO business running afoul of that. That's not up for argument or debate. When the Nanny state becomes the soul moral and spiritual compass then we're all in very big trouble. I bet if we were forcing ham sandwiches down the throats of Muslim school children, there would be a whole other tone coming out of the liberal left.

I'm sure you meant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Amen Lord!

---

so I'm going to forgive you this time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Devout Catholics have religious prohibition against contraception and the government has less than ZERO business running afoul of that.

---

All Catholics, not just the devout ones, fall under that prohibition, yet the vast majority of them simply chose to ignore it. And the Catholic organizations in NY state where I am and where that newly minted cardinal has been in charge for few years now, already provide contraception because state law requires them to do so.

Here's an idea how to not provide contraception if that's offending your religious beliefs - run your religious organization with volunteers instead of with employees. It's the Christian way after all, though only if by 'Christian' you mean the way Jesus proposed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

..I bet if we were forcing ham sandwiches down the throats of Muslim school children, there would be a whole other tone coming out of the liberal left.

---

Wrong, the state approved bad school nutritionist, afterall C='s degree, would replace the ham sandwiches with deep fried chicken nuggets. Oh wait, wrong thread. Ooops. :)

Wait - who is being forced to use contraceptives?
I missed that part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

Wait - who is being forced to use contraceptives?
I missed that part.

---

Nobody, that's why this is a stupid issue for conservatives to get their panties in a twist over it. The only thing that's being required is that the insurance plans selected by employers for their employees to buy has to include contraception with no co-pay. Nobody's making the women who buy that insurance use contraception, they're just making sure that contraception is a choice available to every woman, regardless of their other financial circumstances.

Of course, there are some religious organizations who believe that contraception should never be chosen, and they want the right to deny that option to the people they employ, or at least make it much more expensive and unreasonable for them to take that choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Nobody, that's why this is a stupid issue for conservatives to get their panties in a twist over it. The only thing that's being required is that the insurance plans selected by employers for their employees to buy has to include contraception with no co-pay. Nobody's making the women who buy that insurance use contraception, they're just making sure that contraception is a choice available to every woman, regardless of their other financial circumstances.

Of course, there are some religious organizations who believe that contraception should never be chosen, and they want the right to deny that option to the people they employ, or at least make it much more expensive and unreasonable for them to take that choice.

---

I respectfully disagree. The government mandating that a certain group disregard their religious beliefs and provide goods and services prohibited by their religious tenants is (in my estimation) one hell of a good reason to get your panties in a wad. Since when is government intervention required to make contraceptives available anyway? Every damn grocery store, gas station, convenient store, or drug store has aisles and aisles of this stuff availability is NOT an issue. If your religion prohibits the use of such items that's your choice NOT the government's. I'd really prefer that our benevolent leaders concentrate on really significant issues like an economy that's been in the toilet for 4 years, a president that entertains terrorists at the White House, and supreme court justices that view the Constitution as a pesky little document.

I guess I'm just a little surprised that the OP was even seen as a political issue. Contraception in and of itself is NOT and should not be a political issue. Call me crazy but just like alot of you, my folks taught me that relative to the humpty dumpty you have 3 options:
1. Obstain and take matters into your own hands
2. Put a helmet on that soldier before he goes to battle (i.e. be responsible and protect yourself)
3. If you can't or won't exercise option 1 or 2, be prepared to be a man and handle your business when the lady in question turns up pregnant.

Notice none of the above requires our benevolent leadership's intervention. It just struck me as funny because my Mom used to say the same thing. And as the title of the thread suggests literally and mechanically. If a woman squeezed an asprin between here legs, pregnancy would be quite impossible.

I agree that it shouldn't be up to the government to determine what is or isn't part of a healthcare plan.
Where I got lost is on the argument about forcing ham sandwiches down the throats of muslim kids. The current situation would be more like making ham sandwiches available and leaving it up to them to choose whether to eat it - in other words: the exact way things work right now, which no one is complaining about.

Quote:

---

I guess I'm just a little surprised that the OP was even seen as a political issue.

---

It was probably your second post (post #3 in the thread) where you brought up politics that made it into a political issue.

So what if I own a company and I'm one of those guys whose religion says you leave all medical issues in the big man's hands and would rather watch your wife die at home rather than be treated and cured by the medical community. Does that mean I can tell my employees "no health insurance for you cause I don't need it or think it's within my moral convictions so neither do you. Just learn to prey and your health issues will be answered" You want insurance buy it all yourself.

If you own that company and pay me enough to buy private insurance, I'll come work for you.

Of course it probably doesn't matter that birth control pills have other medical uses than just as a contraceptive.

There's always this option...
http://i658.photobucket.com/albums/u...01/momnote.jpg

Mom meant well. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Really, you too? And I thought you'd be responsible enough to use a dictionary.

No, the main problem is actually the hypocrisy. If only instead of preaching, these self-proclaimed conservatives start matching their words with deeds and stop mooching from the government but become self-reliant it'll all be fine and peachy. The reality, as demonstrated in recent studies, is that they are instead somewhat delusional - they don't even realize they taking from the government social programs and claim to be self sufficient at the same time as they are heavily using the dole. May be if those conservative politicians can grow a pair and actually cut some of the 'fat' despite the cost of not being elected, now that's what I'll call a good start.

And then there are all those priests impotent to do their job and convince their sheep to be responsible, abstinent and not use contraception, no surprise they want to blame their failure on the government. Last I checked Jesus never blamed the government, and it used to be a little bit more tyrannic and unaccountable than the one americans chose themselves.

So, here's my solution - spending those 25 cents on a mirror.

---

"Maybe" is supposed to be one word and "Americans" is supposed to be capitalized.:rofl2: Sorry couldn't resist.

We all lose our dictionary sometimes.

Oh yes, because typos are the exact same thing as knowing the actual meaning of words.
I have a new proposition though. Americans must show that they have learned their own language, or be stripped from their citizenship. It may or may not teach personal responsibility, but it certainly would make for a more cohesive nation. Let's see who is conservative enough to support this.

It just struck me as funny Gugi. We all screw up be it spelling, context or even definition. Doesn't reflect anything about a persons intelligence or the validity of a person's argument. Just means we are all human.

I think I will stick with "all men are created equal" whether they have a good vocabulary or not.

Quote:

---

I respectfully disagree. The government mandating that a certain group disregard their religious beliefs and provide goods and services prohibited by their religious tenants is (in my estimation) one hell of a good reason to get your panties in a wad. Since when is government intervention required to make contraceptives available anyway? Every damn grocery store, gas station, convenient store, or drug store has aisles and aisles of this stuff availability is NOT an issue. If your religion prohibits the use of such items that's your choice NOT the government's. I'd really prefer that our benevolent leaders concentrate on really significant issues like an economy that's been in the toilet for 4 years, a president that entertains terrorists at the White House, and supreme court justices that view the Constitution as a pesky little document.

---

The government has already mandated certain groups disregard their religious beliefs Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and it has done so in the past many a time. In that respect I agree it is a time to get panties in the wads but it just seems odd to me that it is only when certain religions are believed to be attacked (not necessarily attacked but believed to be) that people stand up. Anyways to the second issue I go to a college in a pretty rural area of New York State, and even out there I can say that birth control is widely available but I will say that in the inner city (which is near my home address) while birth control is in stores most of the people who end up having sex either don't buy it because of finances, or do not buy it because of social stigmas. I can also say that this also happens in rural areas too where everyone knows eachother, there's a joke about this whole topic which I will include as it does provide some humor.* That being said I believe the insurance companies whether they are employees of a public, private, religious or secular organization should provide employees with birth control options.

As to the more serious topics you mentioned those are a matter for another much longer discussion in a different thread.

*A young man goes into a drugstore to buy condoms. The pharmacist says the condoms come in packs of 3, 9 or 12 and asks which the young man wants.

"Well," he said, "I've been seeing this girl for a while and she's really hot. I want the condoms because I think tonight's "the" night. We're having dinner with her parents, and then we're going out. And I've got a feeling I'm gonna get lucky after that. Once she's had me, she'll want me all the time, so you'd better give me the 12 pack." The young man makes his purchase and leaves.

Later that evening, he sits down to dinner with his girlfriend and her parents. He asks if he might give the blessing, and they agree. He begins the prayer, but continues praying for several minutes. The girl leans over and says, "You never told me that you were such a religious person." He leans over to her and whispers, "You never told me that your father is a pharmacist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Oh yes, because typos are the exact same thing as knowing the actual meaning of words.
I have a new proposition though. Americans must show that they have learned their own language, or be stripped from their citizenship. It may or may not teach personal responsibility, but it certainly would make for a more cohesive nation. Let's see who is conservative enough to support this.

---

Now I'm just a dumb military Southern boy (with a Bachelors degree in English by the way) but I do detect a bit of a smug tone of intellectual superiority. Which I will politely ignore as you New York elitists are expected to behave like hooligans. Whatever gets you through the night good sir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RayCover

It just struck me as funny Gugi. We all screw up be it spelling, context or even definition. Doesn't reflect anything about a persons intelligence or the validity of a person's argument. Just means we are all human.

---

But, of course, there's no argument about that.
My point however was about misrepresenting things, intentionally or out of ignorance, which makes arguing pointless because there is no coherent framework to conduct the argument over. I thought that was pretty clear, but I suppose I misjudged and should have just made an explicit statement instead of just pointing towards it.

So, back to the original video, what Friess says is that abstinence does the job and doesn't cost a thing, and in the context of his previous statement implying that this current contraception issue is completely insignificant.
Which shows either complete ignorance (which is extremely unlikely for him) or pure demagoguery.
With the exact same logic 1OldGI concluded that the obvious solution to all problems in USA is people simply becoming responsible.

And both 'solutions' are perfectly valid, of course, the only minor problem is that they simply do not work outside of somebody's fairy-tales mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RayCover

I think I will stick with "all men are created equal" whether they have a good vocabulary or not.

---

Oh, let's not even get there :) Because, you know, when that was written the meaning of 'men' was 'human beings with y chromosome', and the meaning of 'all' was 'only those of caucasian origin'. And of course nowadays the meaning has changes somewhat, but 'equal' most certainly stil does not mean in practice what it means in the dictionary. Or may be it does mean the same thing as in a dictionary - an abstract idealized concept with little bearing to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Now I'm just a dumb military Southern boy (with a Bachelors degree in English by the way) but I do detect a bit of a smug tone of intellectual superiority. Which I will politely ignore as you New York elitists are expected to behave like hooligans. Whatever gets you through the night good sir.

---

I have no degrees in English. I spent my youth helping my grandparents pasture sheep, gather hay, pick fruit, vegetables, etc. Only in my teenage years I started learning English and was irresponsible enough to take advantage of our 18 year old teacher who was incapable of ruling in adolescents 3 years junior to her, and so I spent 70% of the English classes playing soccer outside. I only moved to NY because, apparently, there are not enough Americans who are qualified enough to do hard science, so they have to import people like me able to think both in abstract and practical way, as well as expressing ourselves well enough in a language we learned in addition to our mother tongue (and in my case in addition to two other foreign languages). So, yeah it's all intelectual superiority because I was born into the NY liberal elite.

You're supposed to call it football, not soccer.
Learn foreigner English....

Was the teacher hot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

Was the teacher hot?

---

I believe the proper American English is "Hell yeah!!!!" :)

Btw, I'd call it football, but you gringos won't understand. Because in your mind 'football' seems to be a game involving hands and elipsoid, not feet and ball... but that's a whole other topic...

and you were outside playing soccer... :-(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

and you were outside playing soccer... :-(

---

Hey, may be youse was smart when you was 15, but I wasn't. I was being obnoxious until she cried and through her tears could only scream 'get out'. How the hell would I know any other way of making a hot girl notice me?!? It's not like I was Newt Gingrich smooth and all ;)

She probably had an aspirin between her knees anyway.

Wow! We're all just victims of those horrible white men and this terrible capitalist system that rewards acheivement, inititative and self-reliance. A socialist state is our only hope. If you're not on board with that well you're just an ignorant dumb ass. Don't you represent the party always yammering about civility?

If it's any consolation, I have no skills in soccer. I also noticed you used the term "youse" is New York English included in your polyglot resume'? In any case you seem to have mastered it quite nicely. Would I be far off in guessing you might be from Spain?

Huh? I do not represent any party and no party represents me. If I was not able to express myself fairly clearly with regards to abstract and complex ideas I would not have gotten into this country. The 'youse' and such are just taking advantage of being here to learn the local culture and every now and then I mock these things as a sign of endearment. When I previously lived in Italy I didn't do it to the same extent, and ever since I wish I had.

And no, I come from eastern Europe, not Spain, but one day I may go and live in Spain for a while - it always seemed to me a rather appealing place to get to know up close. Who knows if I end up in Barcelona I may even try lisp, I take myself lightly enough to not care if I make a fool of myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

, but 'equal' most certainly stil does not mean in practice what it means in the dictionary. Or may be it does mean the same thing as in a dictionary - an abstract idealized concept with little bearing to reality.

---

There is more than one way to be equal, is there not? You can focus on equal outcomes and/or equal oppotunities. I prefer equal oportunities, as in everyone is the same in the eyes of the government and can all equally exercise their rights. Most everyone is capable of lifting themselves out of poverty through education and persperation, if they so choose.

For the sake of argument lets say it is possible to create equal outcomes, even though we are all individuals with our own unique skills we bring to the table. It would be impossible to raise all of the poor to the level of the wealty(for more reasons than just the wealthy had it easier), so inorder to seek equality the wealthy have to be pulled down to a level the poor can match. But even then they are not equal in their exercise of rights, one group had their rights restricted, for another group to exercise special priviledges. That doesnt sound equal or fair to me. On top of that, is it fair to force those in a lower bracket to move up? I know plenty of people that are plenty happy and content at their current levels, even when bordering on poverty. There are also those that are wealthy who are miserable, money is not an end, it is a means.


Regarding your replies to the OP: Abstinence IS the only 100% safe form of birth control as well as STD control, I would think someone as smart and educated as youself would know that, or is it just that you are arguing for arguments sake? I understand that sex is fun and feels great and everyone would love to do it risk free, but you must have taken a biology class at somepoint and realize that sex can make babies, but immaculate conception only happens in that book you seem to hold in such high regard. That being said, as a host on TV the other day pointed out there are plenty of ways to get to the job done, where a womans knees can be touching, so an aspirin, between the knees would not force abstinence on anyone.

Responibility may not be 100% effective for everything, but the more people are reponsible for themselves, the more resources to help those that are incapable of it for whatever reason, aslong as that reason is not that I dont have to be responsible because momma government will pick up the pieces whenever, for whatever, even if it is my incompetence. How does one learn without consequences, if your teacher gave you a correct, no matter your answer, would you be a physisist(or whatever your line of work is)? Would you ever change your spending habits if more money was put in your account, no matter what? Would you learn the proper way to run a budget, so you could get yourself ahead in life, if the previous scenario was in place? If one truly believes in helping those less fortunate, teaching them lessons is the way to do it, like this saying: If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, if you teach him to fish you feed him for a lifetime. Or another one, I think was Napoleon Hill, you could take all the money from the rich and give to the poor and in a short time the rich would have it all back. Why would that be the case? Is it that the rich(used to be poor) dont have the skills neccessary for keeping the money, while the poor(used to be rich) do have those skills? Or is being rich just dumb luck? Yes, I know there are those who are rich that didnt make, dont know how to make, and never could build wealth, but they are a minority, for examples sake John Kerry come to mind, and dont forget the Kennedys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

There is more than one way to be equal, is there not? You can focus on equal outcomes and/or equal oppotunities. I prefer equal oportunities, as in everyone is the same in the eyes of the government and can all equally exercise their rights.

---

You sincerely believe this? And especially that this is how it was intended to be? You must be reading some other country's founding documents.
The most obvious case being that of some men created to be proprietors and some to be property.

I'm not sure did you not understand my statements on contraception and responsibility, or you are just not interested in addressing them and instead address something completely different? The question is how do you actually make people responsible. Because it doesn't seem to me that 'on the Xth day the Lord God made man responsible'. You surely can look up the statistics on abstinence, divorce, having children outside of marriage, etc. And compare between the 'Christians' who are supposed to believe and live their life according to the high moral standard of the teaching of Jesus, against those who are not religious. So, again, where exactly do you find this magic that simply makes people responsible? And if you do not find magic, why stop right when the important stuff begins, let's hear how responsibility happens in practice.

Without that you are simply arguing that there is an utopia and it's just a matter of we collectively entering into it. So, I say again, let's start where the responsibility actually starts and buy that mirror. You take a look at your life and find out how much you personally pocket out of that government spending, but be responsible and do it honestly so include all those benefits that you may not like to count.

I really have heard enough of the "Get the government's dirty hands off my Medicare".

And I'll say it again this time explicitly, it is actually sad to watch people making caricatures of themselves by resorting to a straw man argument.

I'm impressed with the level of this discussion. These are difficult concerns for difficult times. I't great that these ideas can be brought out here in a positive way.

This was mentioned but as far as I could see no one addressed it:

What about women who might need oral contraceptives for real medical reasons? It's a legitimate treatment for things like polycystic ovaries.

If you are a religious institution entering into a public realm, you need to be able I offer your employees whatever they want. Frankly, to deny someone specific health insurance on religious grounds is discrimination. We need to respect the rights of others, and women have the right to choose what they put in their body. Our society is not catholic and public institutions, regardless of religious affiliation, need to recognize that.

To OldGi's detractors, the assertions of hypocracy are irrelevant to GI's assertions about freedom requiring responsibility. Because some break the law doesn't mean the law is invalid. It sounds like various sore points are being unleashed that don't have to do w/ his assertion. I have some empathy about the sore points, but with just a scan of the first page, it looks like a fast descent into confused discussion.