Nitefox wrote:
Müs wrote:
Nitefox wrote:
RangerDave wrote:
Vindicarre wrote:
Sorry, the fact that "the second place finisher" backed positions similar to what you decries, kinda belies the fact that it's a winning argument; he lost.
I didn't say it was a winning argument, just that there is a significant push for anti-birth control policies from a sizable contingent of the Republican party, and that makes the snark on that point reasonable. Imprecise, because it's humor not political analysis, but sufficiently on target to be effective parody.
The government shouldn't be using my taxes so Sandra Fluke can have more sex or so PP can kill more children. If they can't do those things via private funds on with money they make on their own, sucks to be them.
The government also shouldn't be using my money to get soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
But its give and take.
Also, BC isn't *only* used for contraception purposes and PP doesn't *only* do abortions.
You may not agree with the conflicts but the constitution makes specific comments about military and the such. Not so much about some attention whore who can’t drive 2 miles and spend 9 bucks for birth control out of her own pocket. And if PP is so needed, it should be able to stand on it’s own without using my taxes.
And *I'm* the intolerant one. I like that she's automatically an attention whore because she's taking BC. Which, incidentally didn't have anything to do with spending *your* tax dollars on BC, just that it should be included in PPACA as a federal mandate that *private* insurance plans would be required to cover it.
Also, BC is more than 9 bucks.
To speak to the other point, let's go ahead and vilify *all* of PP while we're at it. After all, where else are low income women going to go to get pap smears, breast exams, gynecological care, counseling, education and other such things? I mean, screw them! (metaphorically of course, if we're not giving them lifejackets, wouldn't want them to drown.)