Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

Alas, I don't need it anyway.

Just call me, ego-licious, the savory tax reformer.

Public dollars should no more pay for viagra than for abortion (except for rape or danger to the mpther's health). Its not the taxpayers responsibility.

I can see it now if the government pays for both, old men getting women pregnant and them going to get abortions, all on the taxpayer dollar.

Wonder if this Digby guy (whoever he is) wants to spend taxpayer money for other people deciding they want to have sex who don't want a baby and can't afford an abortion? Kinda curious how hypocritical or not he is.

UPDATE:

Nevermind decided to research and take care of my curiosity myself. It was like I thought, Digby is a first class hypocrite:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/win-win-...

I do agree with him on one thing

Here's my advice. If women have to buy abortion coverage as a rider, all men have to buy special erection insurance in case they need medical care for sexual dysfunction.

I have no problem standing behind that proposal, because unlike Digby, I'm not a hypocrite on this issue. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, and the taxpayer.

I know this was supposed to be satirical, but I'm with Leonidas- it's perfectly logical and consistent to say that publicly funded health insurance programs shouldn't pay for ED drugs.There is, of course, a greater moral issue surrounding abortion, but in either case the taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook.

BTW, Leonidas, I believe that Digby is a female. I've seen a few women making this point as though the attempt to block federally funded abortions is misogynistic and they think men would be outraged if Viagra funding were being debated.

What a juvenile article by Digby - "nyaah, nyaah, if we can't have our abortions then you can't have your Viagra", as if there is some sort of equivalence. I have no problem with ED drugs not being paid for by taxpayers, it's a minor issue.

Digby's pretty hard left, folks. If you're not familiar with her, it's worth bearing that in mind. And DaGoat's quite right; there's no equivalence at all.

That said -- I'd be happy if they'd just take the danged Viagra / Cialis (etc.) advertisements off of prime time television.

This whole debate seems to assume there is no benefit for women when their man has to take Viagra.

I dunno. Maybe if people got laid more often they'd be less likely to do other stupid and aggressive things like starting unnecessay wars or committing crimes. Encouraging more sex improves the national mood. Yep, I think I'm beginning to see the public good in this. We could increase the societal benefits even more if we could devise a way of providing tax credits for sexual activity.

If we can subsidize making ethanol, we can subsidize making love.

Next you know they will try to take away the deduction for Flomax. Are a man's and a woman's comfort in that area less important, both mentally and physically than any other part of the body?

"as though the attempt to block federally funded abortions is misogynistic "

I wonder if anyone spreading that myth actually believes it. It well could be so.

LOL, DaGoat, so because you "have no problem" with taxpayer-funded erectile dysfunction medication, and it's a "minor issue" to you, that means, objectively, that Digby is being juvenile. Allow me to point out to you that your lack of concern over whether or not your money is spent to help harden other men's penises may possibly not be shared by everyone. Even more to the point, your assumption that regulating women's reproductive systems and personal sex lives is justified but doing the same for men's reproductive systems and personal sex lives is not, is itself very hard to justify.

Yes! Finally. I was going to write something about this just the other day.

Besides, as the cases of prostate cancer will surely begin to rise in direct proportion to the dangerous introduction in an age group of men prone to cancer from excessive testosterone in the first place.. viagra and related products will be shown to be killers.

No prescription rogaine, no male enhancement: Period. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And if there is surgery recommended for removal of the testes, I say we don't pay for it either. That is removing potential life and is nearly the same as abortion. Same goes for OVH procedures. No removal of any organs that God might have intended to produce life...no matter what the cost..

Yes, I'm kidding...about everything but male enhancement and hairloss products.

Just have to add this too about costs of viagra..the hidden ones.. How many more pregnancies will result from older men? They are too old to be fathers and find themselves in their 50s and 60s, even 70s and 80s the new daddy of an infant who will need 20 years of parenting and $upport from this aged pensioner who will simply not be able to provide it to them in all but the rarest of cases.

Don't laugh. I know two men, one in his late 50s and one in his early 50s who were "just having fun" [and on Viagra] and wound up with unwanted children from women they otherwise could care less about. So guess what? Both children are now on some form of public assistance and growing up without a father. Not that THAT will be expensive..oh no..

Bart Stupak is hard right. A lot of readers on this blog are hard right. The entire Republican leadership is hard right. That does not seem to disqualify them from serious consideration of their point of view.

It doesn't take much to be "hard left" in this country -- does it?

And no, you and DaGoat are not "quite right" that there is no equivalence. This is the heart of the misogyny behind the entire concept of restrictions on a woman's right to have an abortion (or not to have one, for that matter). Somehow, it's okay for the government to intrude into women's private health decisions and sexual lives, but ridiculous to even think of doing the same with men's private and personal sexual lives. And I omit the word "health" there quite deliberately. A lot of women have died in childbirth over the centuries, or from complications of pregnancy. To my knowledge, not a single man anywhere, at any time in history, has died from not being able to get it up.

Misogyny 101: Case Study. See above.

... I've seen a few women making this point as though the attempt to block federally funded abortions is misogynistic

as though?. It is. I think the burden is on your side to show that it isn't.

Kathy,

As always, the person making the clame bears the burden of proving it, except in those defenses asserted for criminal acts.

Kathy, keeping in mind someone's political bias -- particularly when it's far off-center -- is nothing more than intelligent handling of sources. When someone who tilts noticeably and consistently in one direction or another voices political opinion, I always ALWAYS pull out my Magical Unskew Glasses to read them.

That includes left and right.

"It doesn't take much to be "hard left" in this country -- does it?"

I'm not even a teensy bit surprised that you think Digby is mainstream.

Editing to add: And no, I don't think public funds should be used for Viagra. Or Rogaine. Or breast enhancements. Or any other related products.

A lot of readers on this blog are hard right. The entire Republican leadership is hard right. That does not seem to disqualify them from serious consideration of their point of view.

On this particular issue, being hard at all disqualifies them.

Or would if we weren't on course to politicize even minor health issues like this. Universal coverage against medical catastrophe is one thing, a federal Commissioner of Erections quite another.

"Universal coverage against medical catastrophe is one thing, a federal Commissioner of Erections quite another."

Bwahhahahaha!

Misogyny 101: Case Study. See above.

Um, I want to clarify. Are you saying MY comment was misogynist?

I hope not, and if indeed you were not, could you clarify whose you are referring to, as there are a few you may be?

Thanks.

I think insurance should cover Viagra. The only reason for sex is heterosexual reproduction. Therefore when sex occurs it's to bring forth another human life, a basic human right. It is going against God's will to deny a man from having sex and bringing more children into this world. ;)

LOL, DaGoat, so because you "have no problem" with taxpayer-funded erectile dysfunction medication, and it's a "minor issue" to you, that means, objectively, that Digby is being juvenile.

I think she's juvenile for equating abortions and ED medications. Sorry if my post was unclear.

It would be informative to hear from some doctors (urologists, psychologist, oncologists). Some feel this is a genuine medical problem.
http://www.mcmanweb.com/male_depression.htm
"The link between depression and heart disease and stroke is well-known. As for the relationship between depression and erectile dysfunction, a number of studies have documented depressed men who returned to all systems go once their depression was resolved. Erectile dysfunction is also a side effect of antidepressants. Additionally, depression may flow
from erectile dysfunction."

Of course, eliminating Viagra could increase the suicide rate among senior men and thus lower the costs of health care. See the: Erection Panel for guidelines.

I'm going to have to make a clipboard for these kind of points.

Dumb spending in one area does not justify spending in another. Does anyone care to challenge that?

I still think Viagra is very different than rogaine or breast implants. The latter are 'vanity' issues; for those who really need it (not using it as a sex toy), it is a deeper issue for them and their partner.

And to get off-topic a little bit, ED is a legitimate medical concern affecting men as early as in their 30's. It can cause significant problems within otherwise good relationships, and ED meds should not be portrayed as helping an"old man's vanity".

Despite that, if there was a significant national unease with government paying for ED meds as there is with abortion, I would not have a problem with the government refusing to pay for ED meds. Any national health plan must necessarily be a compromise.

My insurance doesn't cover that anyway.

When or if I need it... I'll pay for it myself.

BTW, Leonidas, I believe that Digby is a female.

Maybe so, no idea, if I assigned the wrong gender, my bad, but I really don't care one way r the other, he, she or it. I look at the argument, not the gender. No matter what sex Digby is, Digby is a hypocrite on this issue.

Bart Stupak is hard right. A lot of readers on this blog are hard right. The entire Republican leadership is hard right. That does not seem to disqualify them from serious consideration of their point of view.

Nor does it disqualify you and Digby from serious consideration of their point of view, provided you can provide a reasonable argument and defend it with facts when challenged.

It doesn't take much to be "hard left" in this country -- does it?

Or "hard right" depending on who you ask.

Misogyny 101: Case Study. See above.

That remark is beneath you Kathy, if its a personal remark about AustinRoth. If it isn't I hope you will clarify. I have to think its not what it can be interpreted as, I think your a better person than that. I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but please make it more clear.

Misogyny 101: Case Study. See above.

You haven't had the time (or perhaps haven't seen fit) to respond back to my first question back to you.

I do want to make one clarifying point - I used the word 'has', not 'does'. Maybe you misread my intent, or missed that nuance. I am talking about couples where it is used as a medical necessity, not, as I put in a subsequent post, as a sex toy.

We may disagree on a lot, but I cannot believe you think I am a misogynist.

Perhaps she is prone to misandry.

With Kathy, it may or may not be misandrosy. Proably not -- it's just adhering to rigid far-left replacement of reality with a radical alternative to it (obviously, in this case), far removed from it.

Down is "up," red is "green," trees are "rocks," etc., frequently with Kathy.


Examples:

"Bart Stupak is hard right. A lot of readers on this blog are hard right. The entire Republican leadership is hard right."

"Misogyny 101."

DLS, anyone who disagrees with Kathy on anything is considered far right

True -- Kathy is consistent, at least.

"far red": To Kathy, anything but violet (or violet-blue)

http://www.gamonline.com/new/catalog/colortheor...

What claim do you feel needs proving?

Kathy, keeping in mind someone's political bias -- particularly when it's far off-center -- is nothing more than intelligent handling of sources.

I will keep that in memory for the next time I need it.

That includes left and right.

See above.

I'm not even a teensy bit surprised that you think Digby is mainstream.

I didn't say Digby was mainstream. I said she wasn't hard left. Between mainstream and hard left, there are no categories, in your view? This sort of underscores my entire point, I believe.

To be fair, the words "mainstream" and "hard left" really have no meaning anymore for any pragmatic purpose.

And no, I don't think public funds should be used for Viagra. Or Rogaine. Or breast enhancements. Or any other related products.

Well, there you go. We agree on one point, at least.

On this particular issue, being hard at all disqualifies them.

:-)

Funny. And not misogynist.

I agree.

Dr J is quite witty today. :-)

Um, I want to clarify. Are you saying MY comment was misogynist?

Yes, I was.

I think she's juvenile for equating abortions and ED medications. Sorry if my post was unclear.

Your post was not at all unclear.

... for those who really need it (not using it as a sex toy), it is a deeper issue for them and their partner.

Not unlike abortion, eh?

"For those who really need it (not using it to avoid consequences for irresponsible behavior), it is a deeper issue for them and their partners."

"equating abortions and ED medications"

The first is elective -- a Choice [tm], to introduce a badly-misused word.

The second, to appropriate nomenclature of the enviro-extremists: involves not only urgent but, indeed, emergent action, in order to avoid what truly is a global crisis, a catastrophe, a horrifying apocalypse!!!

"I didn't say Digby was mainstream. I said she wasn't hard left. Between mainstream and hard left, there are no categories, in your view? This sort of underscores my entire point, I believe."

Oh come on Kathy. By all means, draw a line with words I didn't use, and then make your case with the strawman.

Of course there are levels and gradations. Digby's a fine writer. She's passionate and sincere. But Digby's not even center-left. Sorry. She may not be an anarchist and totally over the edge, but she's way outside any possible line that would include 'center'-anything.

Bias, Kathy, is not limited to the source. If one is standing significantly to the left or right of center, then I submit that that person's proximity to the edge is relatively shorter. Center might be equally as far away, and center-right (or center-left) an impossible distance.

And to get off-topic a little bit, ED is a legitimate medical concern affecting men as early as in their 30's. It can cause significant problems within otherwise good relationships, and ED meds should not be portrayed as helping an"old man's vanity".

And that's a legitimate medical concern -- how? Given the fact that the consensus of opinion among opponents of legal abortion (and supporters of the Stupak Amendment in particular) is that significant problems with otherwise good relationships caused by an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy is not a legitimate reason for a woman to choose abortion (or to have it publicly funded if she does not have the means to pay for it herself)?

Um, I want to clarify. Are you saying MY comment was misogynist?

Yes, I was.

Then I have to ask, why?

What in the world is misogynist in pointing out that viagra provides a benefit for both members of a couple when a man has ED?

Are you saying that me implying that women enjoy and also want sex as part of a healthy relationship is misogynist?

You are really going off the deep end.

Good for you, JD. Seriously.

Definitely so, Leonidas. Digby is a woman.

That remark is beneath you Kathy, if its a personal remark about AustinRoth.

It's a personal remark about what AustinRoth wrote.

We may disagree on a lot, but I cannot believe you think I am a misogynist.

And as a matter of plain and un-ambiguous fact, I did not state that I think you are a misogynist.

Kathy, are you being deliberately obtuse, or have you just decided that it's more important to defend Digby's hill, since you quoted her, than to admit any difference between abortion and erectile dysfunction?

I'm pro-choice, but I at least understand the moral objection by many to abortion. They see it as murder, Kathy.

I'm back at square one, and I'll say it again - though it clearly won't take hold this time either: There's no equivalency.

Also -- you do recognize that Digby posted that as a Swiftonian suggestion? That you are defending satire? She's not particularly good at it, which is no doubt why you have decided it's serious -- but calling it "An Immoderate Proposal" is a very BIG clue that even she recognizes the absurdity of it. It's a deliberate absurdity, to boot -- and you've swallowed it hook line and sinker.

I think maybe she's crashing on this phrase: "their man"

By all means, draw a line with words I didn't use, and then make your case with the strawman.

Um, excuse me? You are telling me you didn't use the word "mainstream" with reference to how I think of Digby's political philosophy?

And what's the strawman?

And as a matter of plain and un-ambiguous fact, I did not state that I think you are a misogynist.

Oh, you disingenuous double-talker.

OK, you did not directly say I am misogynist, but you have said multiple times my statement was misogynist, so answer the questions I asked, if you can.

What in the world is misogynist in pointing out that viagra provides a benefit for both members of a couple when a man has ED?

Are you saying that me implying that women enjoy and also want sex as part of a healthy relationship is misogynist?

Can you provide a cogent answer? I say you cannot, because there is nothing remotely misogynist that I said.

Can you bring yourself to be as 'brave' as you characterized me when I admitted I was out-of-bounds the other day, and simply admit you misinterpreted my meaning?

Polimom -

That is why I made the follow-up post to clarify. What politically correct term SHOULD I have used? I knew reversing it and saying 'their women' was a no-go.

The wording I used was a woman-centric structuring of the relationship, so even if you read it to mean 'possession' or 'ownership' (which is REALLY trying to find reason to be offended), how does that lead to 'that statement was hateful to women'?

Okay. Let's back up just a sec. What was your precise meaning with this rejoinder:

"I didn't say Digby was mainstream. I said she wasn't hard left. Between mainstream and hard left, there are no categories, in your view? This sort of underscores my entire point, I believe."

You and I were, I take it, both referencing Digby.

I see center-right / center-left, and all between, as mainstream. Move out of those areas, and it becomes a question of degree of rigidity. Hard left. Harder left. Far right. Farther right. What difference does it make?

Now, I'm not sure where the communication is breaking down. Is it in how we are defining mainstream?

And your strawman is leaping from words I didn't say (there's nothing between mainstream and hard-left) and how I've therefore underscored your point.

Okay -- now I'm truly curious. Probably this calls for its own post, but the whole discussion about Digby (whose post prompted the entire thread) and whether she's hard-left or just outside the mainstream, has me truly curious.

Kathy -- you pounced on me for suggesting that outside of center-left is not mainstream. I have two questions:

1. How would you, personally, classify Digby on a linear scale (using terminology such as we've been), and
2. Where do you classify yourself, on that same scale?

I'm pro-choice, but I at least understand the moral objection by many to abortion. They see it as murder, Kathy

No kidding, Polimom. And do you realize that there actually are people out there who have moral objections to Viagra -- or erectile dysfunction medication in general? Also, why do you think it's more legitimate to deny public funding for the legal medical procedure known as abortion to poor women because "many people see it as murder" than to deny public funding for the legal erectile dysfunction medication known as Viagra (among other names) because (a) many people consider it an invitation to sexual irresponsibility and immoral behavior; and (b) it's wrong to make taxpayers pay for a medication that is not unequivocally medically necessary?

Also -- you do recognize that Digby posted that as a Swiftonian suggestion? That you are defending satire? She's not particularly good at it, which is no doubt why you have decided it's serious -- but calling it "An Immoderate Proposal" is a very BIG clue that even she recognizes that absurdity of it. It's a deliberate absurdity, to boot -- and you've swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Oh my god. You have got to be kidding me.

Yes, Polimom. I understand that Digby's post was satire. I have heard of Jonathan Swift and I "got" the reference to his "A Modest Proposal." No, Polimom, I did not "decide that she was serious." I decided that she was using satire to make a serious point. It's that point that I agree with.

Are you seriously telling me you don't understand this?

Jeepers, Kathy. You're starting to scare me here.

It's as if you're telling me that someone might object to eating lima beans (because they hate them), and also object to eating arsenic (because it will kill them ) -- but they can both be orally ingested, so they're equivalent.

(Edited for pronoun clarity)

"As for the relationship between depression and erectile dysfunction, a number of studies have documented depressed men who returned to all systems go once their depression was resolved. Erectile dysfunction is also a side effect of antidepressants. Additionally, depression may flow
from erectile dysfunction."~dduck12
*********

Hmmmm.....

Wonder how many women might become depressed from being forced to carry an unwanted baby to term and then slave for 20 years to provide for it without a father? Might be a little depressing too, wouldn't you think?

OK, so using dduck12's logic, abortions should not only be legal but also paid for because caring for an unwanted pregnancy [then infant, toddler, young child, preadolescent, adolescent, adult] is most definitely rife with potential for female depression.

Oh how terrible, to wake up one day and find the old pecker doesn't work! To face the fact that you're growing old [while your female counterparts have to suffer stretchmarks, becoming less alluring as they age, hot flashes, mood swings and then total infertility about the same time old Johnny goes soft]..

Oh the humanity!...lol... Having to face growing older and everything that comes with a final, mortal life. Time to grow up gentlemen.

Can you bring yourself to be as 'brave' as you characterized me when I admitted I was out-of-bounds the other day, and simply admit you misinterpreted my meaning?

I could, if I seriously believed that I had misinterpreted your meaning, or that there is any other reasonable way to have taken your statement.

But I don't.

Sil -- I refer you to DaGoat, earlier:

"And to get off-topic a little bit, ED is a legitimate medical concern affecting men as early as in their 30's."

I know that doesn't fit your mental model, but... well.. it is what it is. References to the "old pecker" go right along with the title of this thread, though, regarding the "vanity of old men".

So answer the question.

WHAT, in your mind, was misogynist about the comment? What did you think that I was saying in that comment that 'shows a hatred for women'?

You seem to be doing your best not to say.

They aren't both edible. Edible is something that is fit for eating, or appropriate to be eaten. By definition, arsenic is not.

This might seem picky, but it bears directly on my point. Abortion IS a medical procedure that is sometimes necessary for reasons relevant to the health and/or life of the mother or the fetus. I realize (duh!) that abortion opponents think abortion is murder, but objectively it is not murder. This really is not open to reasonable scientific question -- although I also realize that will not stop anyone who wants abortion to be illegal.

"I decided that she was using satire to make a serious point. It's that point that I agree with.

No doubt some folks agreed with John Swift's satirical point regarding the eating of children by the starving masses as well. That hardly makes his point (or their support of it) rational.

"Are you seriously telling me you don't understand this?"

Oh no. I'm not telling you that at all.

1. How would you, personally, classify Digby on a linear scale (using terminology such as we've been), and
2. Where do you classify yourself, on that same scale?

Very liberal, left-liberal, progressive, for both. With the caveat that these labels are fairly useless, since no one agrees on what they mean, and they become just another way to demean someone's political beliefs.

Yes, I believe abortions should be legal and paid for, although you put the words in my mouth (very prescient of you). I also believe as many doctors do that males and females have a medical/mental need to return their bodies and libidos back to a better past. May I also point out that some doctors prescribe using hormones to shrink the prostate. Problem is that decreases libido so maybe there is some balancing out there. Also, what about the guys using Viagra that are gay or use protection, no depressing of females there.
So, I think we are beating a dead horse here except for the Swiftian references.
BTW: I am not a prude, but some of you guys use pretty risque language and graphic descriptions. But, hey, this forum is about politics.

Now, I'm not sure where the communication is breaking down. Is it in how we are defining mainstream?

Maybe. I don't know. Really. I don't think "mainstream" really has any useful meaning anymore. What's mainstream or not is defined by how far to the right or the left the overall political zeitgeist is skewed. I have trouble thinking in those terms. I believe in issues, not politicians or labels. Seriously; that's not sarcasm. My political and social values don't change according to what is currently considered "center" or "mainstream" or hard right or hard left. If I change, it's because my thinking has actually changed. My core beliefs and values are the same now as they were when I was in my twenties. Obviously, the precise nature of the issues changes, but the way I approach them is no different from the way I've approached them my entire adult life.

Yet, back in the late sixties and in the seventies, I would probably have been considered mainstream liberal, whereas now, I know many people here and elsewhere would call me "hard left." Truly, I have no idea what that means.

I realize (duh!) that abortion opponents think abortion is murder, but objectively it is not murder.

Objectively, and scientifically, abortion involves the killing of a human being. The question that SCOTUS found unresolvable (and current POTUS declared to be above his pay grade) is whether or not human beings during that phase of their lives should be considered 'persons' in the legal sense, which would require them to have the same right to life as human beings do after birth in our society.

No doubt some folks agreed with John Swift's satirical point regarding the eating of children by the starving masses as well. That hardly makes his point (or their support of it) rational.

Jonathan Swift's satirical point is that the Irish people were oppressed, persecuted, and starving, and that the British government's responses to said condition of the Irish people was entirely unsatisfactory (to speak in understatement).

I agree with his satirical point. You don't?

Yes, I agreed. The starving people needed help. What I'm saying is that some people doubtless agreed that those danged shirkers outta eat the excess kids if they were that hungry.

Ridiculous, no?

So did Digby misuse the Swiftian approach? Or have you made the mistake of taking her literally?

So answer the question.

WHAT, in your mind, was misogynist about the comment? What did you think that I was saying in that comment that 'shows a hatred for women'?

You seem to be doing your best not to say.

Cat got your tongue?

I think you got your answer. Let's beat up on Swift now.

I'd love to hear the explanation too since I can't figure out what the objection was to your initial comment. When I read it, I chuckled and thought it was a good point- and that it's the opposite of misogynistic since it pointed out that women enjoy better sex as much as men do.

As for your larger argument about the importance of ED treatment for helping relationships- I don't disagree but I think you're opening a floodgate with that kind of logic. There are all sorts of things that can improve mood and relationships, which are very valid and important but still shouldn't be considered as expenses paid for by insurance (and even more so when that insurance is subsidized by taxpayers.) I guess to some extent too, I'm reacting against my own perception of drugs like Viagra being vastly overused- not only in the sense of a sex toy as you've referenced but even when there's a medical issue the drugs are prescribed in lieu of addressing the real underlying health issue in many cases.

"I think the burden is on your side to show that it isn't."

That's not true, Kathy. Misogynistic is unfair, as half of all the pro-lifers out their are women.
This cannot be turned into a feminist issue as you are attempting. Pro-lifers sincerely believe that abortion is murder and that a fetus is not a mass of tissue like a cancer as your side claims. There is nothing mysogynistic about that belief.

Many women have had abortions. Many have regretted the procedure. You are proud of the ones you've had (per your own comments). But I believe that you will always hold your opinion on abortion because, if you didn't, you couldn't handle the guilt you'd feel. Perhaps I'm wrong - I cannot judge you nor will I try. But I have met several former abortion proponents that have told me that very thing - that they continued to fight for abortion rights because they had had one in the past - and it made them feel justified.

Nice try with the mysogyny. It does not apply.

Can we at least get some public funds for free ice cream? I could use a free bowl of ice cream.
LOL
:P

No, Digby did not misuse the Swiftian approach. No, as I've already said, I have not made the mistake of taking Digby seriously (assuming by "seriously" you mean "literally").

I'm shaking my head here, Polimom, because, truly, I do not understand what you're after with these questions. What is it about my appreciation of Digby's satirical post that you aren't clear about? I don't understand where you're coming from. Sincerely.

What you all seem not to realize is that Viagra/Cialis can be prescribed (still) as a blood-pressure medication. That is what it was created for in the first place - with a surprisingly nice side-effect.

If a cardiologist prescribes it, insurance will cover it. If a urologist prescribes it, they will not.
That may vary by state, but that's the way it is in most - if I understand correctly.

Austin, as you can see, I've been busy answering a whole lot of other comments. They keep streaming into my inbox with no pause.

The more you push me via these comments to give you an answer, the less likely I am to do so.

I did not use the word "misogynistic" in the context you are saying I did. I don't know where you got that from.

"but even when there's a medical issue the drugs are prescribed in lieu of addressing the real underlying health issue in many cases."

And, Doctor, your medical specialty is what again?

And believe me, ice cream IS a medical necessity at times. Along with coffee.

Make my ice cream chocolate, please.

Very good point. I think it's covered if prescribed by any doctor, but not sure. They don't differentiate on my prescription plan.

LOL, actually that's funnier than you may realize....I don't know if you were aware that I am a doctor but my patients don't use ED drugs- they are dogs and cats.

I do, however, have enough medical knowledge and read a lot of human medical literature out of my own interest and have formed an opinion which is strictly my viewpoint of certain practices in medicine. Generally I feel that physicians are biased toward pharmaceutical quick fixes, and I feel this is one example. Your mileage may vary.

Kathy, where I'm coming from is sheer frustration with what seems like intransigence... but can't be, right? Because I know you to be a rational person. Yet this inability to see the vast difference between the two (abortions vs. ed) on your part is just truly unfathomable to me.

As I said -- I'm pro-choice. But the objections from many people are much MUCH deeper than your high-handed treatment of them. Essentially, you're saying that roughly half the country is suffering from the subjective vapors re: how they view abortion as murder. Because objectively (your words) it's not. And that the taking of life (as they see it) is somehow equivalent to whether or not a man needs Viagra.

Can you not see how demeaning that is?

OK.... Now all I need is a prescription from my doctor - without having my tonsils pulled to get it.
:)

Agreed on the drug point. We all want a simple pill.

"I am a doctor but my patients don't use ED drugs- they are dogs and cats."

So your patients can lick themselves. Men wouldn't need Viagra either if they could do that!





--------- "Oh lord forgive me for that...... And bless the pygmies in Africa......." - Larry the Cable Guy

Wow, I got to this thread in the thick of it, but I think a lot of folks are entirely missing the point of the article. The article is not saying that there's anything wrong with prescribing and insuring for ED, even on the public's dime if we choose to have public healthcare. The point is that there are a lot of drugs that may not be entirely medically necessary that are prescribed all the time because they improve the quality of life -- Viagra happens to be one taken only by men -- and none of them are nearly as important or as able to improve the quality of life as abortion -- which happens to be a procedure only for women. The big, overall important take-away is this: don't take away women's health care options! Abortion is a legal medical procedure that is undergone by nearly a third of women at some point in their lifetime, it most certainly is a healthcare issue, and it should not be limited in insurance plans that wish to carry it.

BTW: Many women are also asking their docs for libido enhancers. That ok?

Oh wow...lol

The numerous double entendres abundant in this thread were bad enough!

Say, doc, I've always wondered are those neutered/altered cats and dogs happier? At least they don't seem to worry about Viagra or not Viagra.

I'm not sure where you got the 30% figure- my understanding is that the privacy laws prevent the kind of reporting that would allow for that kind of determination, and since the number of women who have had repeat abortions is quite high (I believe almost 50% of women who have abortions have had at least one previous one), you can't extrapolate from the number of abortions overall to the population of women in general.

At any rate- I imagine that the status quo with Medicaid patients would prevail if this bill passes with the Stupak amendment, and that means that medically necessary abortions would still be funded.

According to most studies, most people overwhelmingly agree that life of the mother, rape, and incest are not applicable to abortion legislation. That's a pretty fair statement - regardless of my spiritual beliefs.

With that said, no one wants to "take away women's health care options". With the exception of the examples above, abortion is not healthcare - it does nothing to improve a health condition or malady. Pregnancy is not a disease or an infection. In that view, abortion is an ELECTIVE procedure, which is never covered by insurance.

If a private insurance company wishes to cover abortions, then great. They can do that NOW! Oh that's right, you couldn't afford that kind of insurance because, like smoking, it would be an insurance of risky behavior. You smoke - you pay more. You're promiscuous - you pay more too.

drugs like Viagra being vastly overused

No doubt. But the misuse of drugs, even if you concede by the majority of people who take, and that is likely true, doesn't negate the positive it provides for those who have a medical need.

Ah, back on track.

Austin, as you can see, I've been busy answering a whole lot of other comments. They keep streaming into my inbox with no pause.

The more you push me via these comments to give you an answer, the less likely I am to do so.

Sorry Kathy, but I am calling you out again.

You are completely full of shit on this one, you know it, and you simply do not have the strength of character to admit it or your mistake.

Perhaps the real issue is not any misogyny on my part, but misandry and deep anger towards men on your part. It is also obvious now what a small and petty person you are.

Not nice.

When I read it, I chuckled and thought it was a good point- and that it's the opposite of misogynistic since it pointed out that women enjoy better sex as much as men do.

Thanks CS. I was satrting to wonder why it wasn't obvious what I was saying, and that I meant it in an absolute positive way towards women.

The only thing I can think of is what Polimon said - she is obessising on the words 'their men'.

Oh well. She seems to be off her meds today. I guess it is time to drop it, because she is neither going to admit she misunderstood the post, nor say what she found so offensive.

btw - I learned something new this weekend after years of owning dogs. They can pull muscles in their butt just from wagging their tail too hard! I never would have thought it possible.

At least you select controversial subjects and get our brain waves going, whether any of us is right (correct), or no, in our opinions. And, I was happy to see some humor in the posts. Most times, it seems to me a dry debate on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (Yes, this was a left-handed compliment.)

Not nice.
At this point, who cares?

And besides, the one who is being 'not nice' is the one throwing charges of misogyny around that refuses to say why, despite multiple people questioning it.

Sorry, I meant that reply for KK.

But her silence is your answer.

Hey JD -- If you take away elective abortion, you are taking away my health care options. Abortion is healthcare, and it most certainly does improve a health condition. I mean, I know you've never been pregnant, but I guess you don't have kids? Ever known someone who was pregnant? I could right now get elective surgery to fix the little eye flutter I got from too many years in contact lenses, and it would be covered by my insurance plan. This little flutter is really nothing compared to all of the medical issues that go along with being pregnant -- not to mention with actually giving birth! I've never been pregnant, but I'm pretty sure there's a reason that pregnant women are monitored so very carefully by doctors; for example, why they are the first people on the top of the list for the swine flu vaccination. Think about it for 5 seconds and you'll realize that childbirth used to be the number one cause of death of women, and it takes an awfully lot of healthcare to keep that from being the case.

" abortion is an ELECTIVE procedure, which is never covered by insurance."

Simply not true. My insurance plan would absolutely cover an abortion for me -- medically necessary or elective for whatever reason. There's a good reason that they would do that, too -- it's much easier and cheaper for me to get an abortion than to get 9 months worth of the overwhelmingly huge amount of medical care necessary to get a woman safely through pregnancy and childbirth. Again: huge huge healthcare issue. The average pregnancy/birth costs about $30K. The average early-term abortion generally costs about $1000. You want to drive the cost of health care up? Take away a woman's right to choose.

"You're promiscuous - you pay more too."

It's pretty incredible that people think that promiscuous women are the only ones who get abortions. It's just as incredible that you think it would be preferrable for promiscous women to carry a pregnancy to term even if they don't want to. Why? To punish her?

I got that number from the Guttmacher Institute.

Polimom,

At the risk of confusing and/or frustrating you even more, I will try to explain what you are missing.

I fully understand that people who oppose abortion consider abortion to be murder. And on a purely intellectual level, I respect that belief. However, the issue of abortion -- of being able to choose to end an unwanted or unviable pregnancy -- is existential, and *I* feel that this point is not being understood or respected by the people that I am told I must respect.

What do I mean by existential? I mean that when a woman is pregnant, she is carrying another life inside her body. People who say abortion is murder "get" the first point quite well. But they do *not* get the second point, at all. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say they don't respect what that point means, in the deepest sense. It means that no matter how fervently and sincerely one believes that a fetus or a fertilized egg is a human being, or a child, or whatever, that "human life" or "child" is inside of the body of a woman. If a fetus has rights equal to a woman's, then the very least one can say is that the fetus's rights and the woman's rights are in conflict. Those rights are always in conflict, by definition. So it has to be an issue of whose rights prevail. They can't both prevail if you're saying that a fetus is a person. I don't happen to believe a fetus is a person, but if a fetus is a person, then certainly a woman is a person. And making abortion illegal or very difficult to get is telling a woman that her body rights don't matter -- that the law can do whatever it wants to her body and she has no right to say no. That infuriates me. But beyond even this, what infuriates me even more is when I am told that I must understand and respect how upsetting it is for people who call themselves "pro-life" to think about women killing their unborn babies, when "pro-lifers" do not have any respect for the sensibility of a woman who feels her body is being violated by being forced to grow something inside it. So they tell you, "A woman isn't *forced* to get pregnant." Well, this may be true -- setting aside the fact that many unviable pregnancies are wanted, so keeping your legs closed is not relevant -- but the fact that this woman IS pregnant, and that the embryo or fetus IS inside her body, still remains. The fetus or embryo is literally part of her body. "Pro-lifers" have no respect for this. I have even had anti-choicers (in other online forums, not here) tell me that an unborn baby is *not* part of a woman's body. Of course it's hard to make the case that the unborn baby is not inside the woman's body, but in this view it's not a part of the woman's body at all. It's an entirely separate human being that just happens to be sitting in a container inside her body.

Let me just say here that I know there are many women who think abortion is murder, too -- and all I can say about those women is that they do not get it, either. It's shocking to me that they don't, since they're women, but they don't. And what I want to know is, why is it always so incumbent upon pro-choice people to understand that anti-choice people think abortion is murder when no one appears to expect anti-choice people to understand that pro-choice people -- especially those who are female -- are outraged that these people think it's okay to make a woman's body a battleground for a war over whether abortion is murder -- and that they don't even understand that it's anything a woman even should be upset over.

This inability to see, and dismissive response when it's explained, that the integrity of women's bodies is a self-determination and existential issue for many women -- and that this issue is much deeper than the simple mantra that a fetus is a human being and abortion is murder -- is *also* high-handed and demeaning. Yet this concept just does not appear to get through. To anyone.

Connecting this to Viagra.... A lot of women (I am most definitely far from being the only one) are sick and tired, fed up, and enraged by the fact that the appropriateness of arguing over exactly how and to what extent and by what means women's bodies will be regulated and controlled, does not seem to be open to serious question; whereas men *never* have to face this issue. Men are never asked to accept the premise that the state has the right to regulate a man's sexual or reproductive life. Indeed, it's considered a laughable absurdity even to suggest that there are two sets of standards for bodily autonomy here -- as illustrated, I have to say, by your comments to me.

I have no idea if this will help you understand where I'm coming from. I'm doing my best, and that's all I can do.

The RNC insurance plan covers elective abortions. Hmmmmmm. Maybe your own house is not in order?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456...

“The current policy has been in effect since 1991, and we are taking steps to address the issue,” [RNC spokesman] Gitcho said.

I don't happen to believe a fetus is a person

So, that means you believe up until the instant of birth, when the fetus is then a child, the woman has the right to kill the fetus.

Nice.

That, btw, does indeed put you in the nut-case far left side of the equation.

Unless I misstate your position and you DON'T believe that after all.

enraged by the fact that the appropriateness of arguing over exactly how and to what extent and by what means women's bodies will be regulated and controlled

Of course, then you contradict yourself, and DO support women's bodies being regulated and controlled, and the argument is instead about when in the pregnancy that regulation and control is allowed.

Kathy, thank you for the comprehensive response. I think, perhaps, that where you and I diverge most strongly is on the anger at men. I simply don't have a blanket rage at them, as a gender.

"Indeed, it's considered a laughable absurdity even to suggest that there are two sets of standards for bodily autonomy here -- as illustrated, I have to say, by your comments to me."

I'll be blunt. I resent this strongly. Perhaps you simply dismissed my statement earlier that I'm pro-choice? Or maybe because I took offense at your belittling / demeaning or pro-lifers in this post, you thought I was being disingenuous?

Au contraire, I dislike it when either position dismisses or demeans the other in such a manner, as this post / thread does.

I must say, though, that in some ways I envy you your clarity, even as I do that of the zealous anti-abortionists. Unlike you and they, though, I'm cursed with the ability to understand and relate to all sides -- and I continually strive to cast this curse upon others.

Wow, Roro.....You're full of all kinds of assumptions about me aren't you?

I have THREE children, thank you. And I was involved in every step of their gestation and birth (as much as my wife would allow me to be without being a pest).

"This little flutter is really nothing compared to all of the medical issues that go along with being pregnant "
Ok, Roro.... Does that mean that you purposely performed an act that you KNEW would cause the flutter? NO.
Do women purposely perform an act that they KNOW can cause a pregnancy?
YES.

You wrongly equate pregnancy and a life inside a woman's uterus - one of the most beautiful things on planet earth - a deformation or condition to be "fixed? I'll give every penny I have and hock every possession I own for the life of a child. Your $30K doesn't cover the worth of the child in a woman's uterus. If you think that human life can be dictated in terms of monetary value, then anything I say cannot help you.

I didn't insinuate that promiscuous women were the only ones who get abortions. But I have provided links to unbiased studies that say that well over 90% (91-93%) of all abortions were for reasons other than rape, incest, or for the life of the mother. The reasons given ranged from "I can't afford a baby right now", to "I'm too inexperienced to have a child", to "I'm not ready for a baby".
Yes, Roro.... A person that has sex regardless of the consequences, is by defintition, promiscuous.

EDIT TO ADD: If a woman (promiscuous or not) does not want a child, I'll personally (or many like me) will take every single one if it would keep the child from dying. Yes, I do expect a woman to carry to term.

I guess that just comes from my upbringing where I was tought by my mother: "You made your bed, now lay in it.

I read your response to Polimom, Kathy.
First, it was very well written, and surprisingly to the point and does not talk around the issue. Thank you so much for that. You have frustrated me as well in the past - just as polimom was getting frustrated.

But you are missing our point as well. A woman has a right to do whatever she wishes to her body. You are absolutlely correct about that. With one exception..... She is not legally allowed to take her own life.
Once a woman (and a man by extension) makes love and conceives a child, they have created life. It is at that time when some of our more selfish "rights" get taken away. We can no longer be the selfish individuals we were. We must mature and step up to our obligations. A responsible human being (male or female) steps up to that responsibility. Irresponsible people wish to find a way out of their duties. This is true of parents that birth a child as well. There are many people out there who treat their children as an afterthought and continue with a "single" life as they did previously. They are in the wrong as much as a woman who shirks her responsibility to the child SHE created.

That HAS to make logical sense. Not only is this an intense "moral" issue for everyone, but on a pragmatic scale it has everything to do with personal responsibility. And far to often these days, people look for an excuse or an "out" instead of being a competent and honorable human being. That happens to be another reason our nation is in the mess it's in.

"The RNC insurance plan covers elective abortions. Hmmmmmm. Maybe your own house is not in order?"

Hey wait a darned minute, Green.
I'm a DEMOCRAT!

I'll be blunt. I resent this strongly. Perhaps you simply dismissed my statement earlier that I'm pro-choice? Or maybe because I took offense at your belittling / demeaning or pro-lifers in this post, you thought I was being disingenuous?

I know you are pro-choice, Polimom. I don't question that. I just don't understand why you have been saying to me that *you* don't understand why I can't see that I'm demeaning people who think abortion is murder, but you have not said -- as far as I am aware -- that you understand why many women (Digby and me being the two obvious ones at the moment) see a double standard in the way men's privacy is treated with regard to sexual and reproductive issues. I am not saying that Viagra and abortion are the same thing or that they have the same definition or do the same thing. I am saying that there's this deeper issue for many women than just the obvious surface dissimilarity between Viagra and abortion. I am saying that in an important way you don't appear to acknowledge, they are similar.

I am truly sorry that what I wrote offended you. It was not intended to offend you, and more than that, I didn't expect that it would. I thought it was straightforward that you hadn't acknowledged the point I made above. If you feel that I've misunderstood, please tell me. I feel that in certain ways you have misunderstood *my* position, and if that's the way I feel, then I am obliged (and want to) be open to any way in which I have misunderstood you.

Edited to add: Also, btw, I am not "angry at men." I am angry at some of the ways in which we as a society enable or allow men to be privileged above women (this is going to start a whole new fight, sigh), but that is *not* the same as being "angry at men." I had a father whom I loved deeply; I have a brother whom I love deeply (if more complicatedly); I had a husband who didn't work out in that role but with whom I am still in contact and whom I respect and like (I have even been very, very nice to his new wife!). I also have had various relationships with men post-divorce -- one of which was extremely important to me and very painful in the way it ended. I'm trying to write this so it doesn't sound defensive, but I really am not "angry at men" in that general, generic sense. I really am not.

"LOL, DaGoat, so because you "have no problem" with taxpayer-funded erectile dysfunction medication, and it's a "minor issue" to you, that means, objectively, that Digby is being juvenile"

DaGoat said that he "has no problem" with NOT funding ED meds with tax-payer money. It seems this thread (so far, I haven't made my way through all 111 comments) can be paraphrased like so:

Liberals: If you are going to restrict government funds for abortions because you are morally opposed, then I'm going to pretend I morally object to ED meds and restrict government funds for them to. Let's see how you like that!

Conservatives: Um, ok, sure, whatever.

Liberals: See! You're all a bunch of hypocrites.

If someone has a moral objection to ED meds being funding by the federal government, I invite them to do the same thing that pro-lifers do: call you representatives. Make your opinions heard. Form groups to fight for what you think is right. That's what democracy is all about. More power to you.

That HAS to make logical sense. Not only is this an intense "moral" issue for everyone, but on a pragmatic scale it has everything to do with personal responsibility. And far to often these days, people look for an excuse or an "out" instead of being a competent and honorable human being. That happens to be another reason our nation is in the mess it's in.

JD, it does make logical sense -- except in the cases it doesn't. Abortion is not *always* an indication of personal irresponsibility. In fact, often it's not. Sometimes -- many times -- a woman who has an abortion is actually acting *responsibly.* How can that be? Well, because every time a woman gets pregnant, the reason for her being pregnant is not *always* that she was having recreational sex and didn't use birth control. Both Almoderate and I have written here more than once about specific situations in which a woman who wanted her pregnancy might have to end it. It's not irresponsible to have an abortion when the fetus has a fatal genetic condition that causes immense suffering -- immense suffering, JD; unimaginable if you haven't seen it up close and personal -- and a total lifespan of two and a half to five years -- all but the first few months of which are spent in ghastly discomfort and suffering. That's not irresponsible. If someone made the choice to have a child knowing the child had this condition, I would respect that, but I do not think that making the choice I made was irresponsible.

It is not irresponsible to have an abortion if the pregnancy involves serious threats to the health or life of the mother. Especially if the pregnancy was wanted -- which it is in many if not most cases.

Women are responsible and morally capable creatures, JD -- for the most part. Same as men. No different.

It's pretty incredible that people think that promiscuous women are the only ones who get abortions.

Especially people who have been told over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that it's a misconception to think only promiscuous women have abortions. With supporting details, too.

Thanks for acknowleging the logic in my statement, Kat.

But you have to go back and read, and I mean REALLY read my last post.

I wasn't referring to women who HAD to have an abortion. I was referring to women who CHOSE to have an abortion. There is a vast difference there. I will not self-righteously stand here and say that there is no time a woman must be allowed an abortion.

As I have repeatedly stated....
1. Incest
2. Rape
3. Life of the mother.
4. Stillborn child - can't develop
5. Ectopic pregnancy (in the follopian tube for those who were unaware)
I'm sure there are more.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THESE INSTANCES. These are the exception and not the rule.

The personal responsibility argument I made above does not include these women. It's not their fault they were raped, molested, or that their baby is endangering their life.
For the women who IRRESPONSIBLY get pregnant with little regard to consequence or who arent financially or emotionally not ready for a child and have sex anyway - THAT is personal irresponsibility.

I respect your well thought-out explanation of your position on abortion, Kathy. And for the record, although I am pro-life I don't equate abortion to murder.

With regards to this:

"If a fetus has rights equal to a woman's, then the very least one can say is that the fetus's rights and the woman's rights are in conflict. "

True. The rights of the two are in conflict (since you are assuming for the sake of argument that the unborn child has rights). But you have come to the conclusion then that the rights of the mother should always win out. I agree in the case that the life of the mother is at risk. If, in a simplistic case, the choice is between the life of the mother or the life of the baby, very few people would side with the baby in that case. However, very often that is not the case. Very often abortions are performed not because of dire medical concerns but because the mother and/or father decides that they are just not ready.

In the unfortunate circumstance when we are forced to balance the rights of one person against the rights of another person (which can happen even outside of the abortion issue), the extent to which rights are being violated seems relevant to me. If we have to choose between one person living or another person suffering some lesser injustice (like being forced to carry a baby to term), it seems reasonable that we should side with the person whose life is at stake. So, I wouldn't say that the life of the baby is more important than the life of the mother, but I would say that if we consider them to have equal rights, the rights of the baby are infringed on to a much greater degree if the abortion occurs, compared to the rights of the mother that are infringed on by being forced to carry the baby to term. This is especially true when you consider that raising a child is not the only alternative to abortion--there is adoption.

Now, I expect I might get a reaction like, "not all abortions are just because the mother is not ready--sometimes there are complications, etc.". Yes, I have children and know too well that pregnancy can involve complications. So, as a preemptive defense, I would be perfectly willing to accept a law that restricts abortion except in the case of a pre-natal complication, even a non-life threatening one, and of course in the case of rape or incest.

I also realize that you were only considering that the child has rights for the sake of argument, and you don't really hold that position. So I don't expect that above to change your mind regarding abortion. However, I offer it as an attempt to help you understand where the other side is coming from, just as you did very well at explaining your own side.

You wrongly equate pregnancy and a life inside a woman's uterus - one of the most beautiful things on planet earth - a deformation or condition to be "fixed? I'll give every penny I have and hock every possession I own for the life of a child. Your $30K doesn't cover the worth of the child in a woman's uterus.

This moves me and angers me at the same time.

Let me ask you something. You say that the life inside a woman's uterus is one of the most beautiful things on planet earth. What would be your assessment of the beauty or lack of beauty of the life outside a woman's uterus?

Another question: Can you identify the point at which a child is no longer worth every penny you have and every possession you own? Is it when they stop being "cute"? Or when they hit adolescence? Maybe when they turn 18? Is a female child no longer one of the most beautiful things on planet earth when she is not a child anymore? How about when she's 24? Or 38? Or 59? When does a woman's life become something less than one of the most beautiful things on planet earth?

Actually, that was more than one question. So it goes.

These are the exception and not the rule.

Except that they are *not* the exception. They may not be the rule, either, but they're not exceptional cases. There are many such cases -- and certainly many more than most people would think.

So, as a preemptive defense, I would be perfectly willing to accept a law that restricts abortion except in the case of a pre-natal complication, even a non-life threatening one, and of course in the case of rape or incest.

By a prenatal complication, I'm assuming you are referring to one that affects the mother's health or life, not the fetus's.

What would you conclude about a pregnancy in which the fetus had a significant deformity or abnormality, or a medical condition that was incompatible with life? I'm not talking about a cleft palate here or even mild Down's syndrome. I'm talking about no brain in the skull or only the brain stem. That happened to the sister-in-law of a former co-worker. I'm talking about severe Down's syndrome or developmental disorders that will prevent the child, if born, from ever being able to do even simple tasks or have any kind of independent life. I'm talking about a fatal genetic condition like Tay-Sachs, in which the child, if born, is guaranteed to die by the age of five and suffer horribly until that day. As I've already mentioned, that happened to me.

Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion in cases like these?

However, I offer it as an attempt to help you understand where the other side is coming from, just as you did very well at explaining your own side.

Understood.

Why should some medical conditions be covered by health insurance while other medical conditions not be covered by health insurance?

Erectile dysfunction is a medical condition. As such I think the drugs which treat it should be covered by insurance. The benefits of sexual intercourse are numerous, not just for immediate pleasure. Sexual intercourse relieves stress, brings us closer to other people, makes us happier people and sometimes results in pregnancies and births of beautiful people. How many of us have ever said (or thought), "He (or she) needs to get laid?" I hope most of us realize that sex is not just about immediate gratification, at least not all the time.

Which of these benefits are not worthy of treatment?

AustinRoth's original comment nailed it on the head.... Sex isn't just about a man getting it up for his pleasure alone; it takes two to tango. How many of us, men and women, would be grumpy, or irritated if our partner (male or female) could never again have sex with us? If your partner said they could never have sex with you again, would you just accept it or would you try to find a treatment?

As far as the pure pleasure aspect.... Doesn't medicine exist to make our lives more comfortable? Who among us have NEVER seen a doctor for a cold or flu or headaches? Sometimes we go to doctors knowing full and well that we will recover from a nasty flu or cold but there are drugs that we can take which will help us recover faster and make us feel better. If people do not believe that ED should be covered because ED is not a "medical necessity", meaning it is not a life or death situation, then where do we draw the line in providing treatment for other non life-threatening situations which people regularly expect their doctors to treat?

And of course there are some people who do abuse Viagra. But many other drugs are abused, too. So should we not cover the cost of any drug which might be abused? No. It is up to the doctor to provide an accurate diagnosis. Drugs which treat erectile dysfunction are like any other drug used for any other medical condition.

"By a prenatal complication, I'm assuming you are referring to one that affects the mother's health or life, not the fetus's."

No, I was referring to complications which affect the mother or the fetus.

"Let me ask you something. You say that the life inside a woman's uterus is one of the most beautiful things on planet earth. What would be your assessment of the beauty or lack of beauty of the life outside a woman's uterus?"

I do not understand what you are asking. (?) Beauty or lack of beauty. Pregnancy is not to be classed with visual beauty. For example, "pretty" girls are not always beautiful. Unattractive girls can be beautiful. The same applies to men. Since I have no idea what you are talking about, I cannot answer correctly.

And your assessment of beauty seems to be sexist.
All women are beautiful to me. There have been few exceptions, but those were vile women full of hatred with no inner or outer beauty. Their hatred permiated their facial expressions and blackened their hearts - true lack of beauty. Men are the same way. We are a bit more simplistic that women in general, however.

Life is beautiful until it is overcome by evil - any and all forms of hate.
That is the point when ANYONE becomes "un"beautiful. And it's a progressive condition that snowballs. The longer people stay in that state, the harder it is to overcome.

So, since you didn't address my last post......
I'll say it again. I did not say that women who NEEDED abortion were promiscuous. The vast majority of abortions do not fit into this category. Women who seek to erase their mistakes (fail to step up to the duty they have CREATED) are irresponsible.

Stockboy....

No one is saying that sex is bad. Go for it. Enjoy! I personally believe it should remain within marriage (which eliminates a whole host of marital problems later for those who do not), but that is everyone's right to believe otherwise.

All we are stating is that those who "relieve stress" without precaution, or without any consideration to the vast responsibility that a child can bring; should not expect for society to bail them out with abortion. That's the moral side. The pragmatic side is that of personal responsibility itself. No one these days wants to take responsibility for their actions. That's a problem we shouldn't enable.

JeffersonDavis, thanks. My comment was geared towards the topic of the post: paying for erectile dysfunction. Nothing in my comments should be construed to address the separate (though closely related) issue of abortion which naturally cropped up. Sorry if my comment wasn't clear.

No, actually, you completely misunderstood what I was asking. (My fault, not yours). I wasn't comparing pregnancy to visual beauty. I was comparing your lyrical, rapturous tone when talking about unborn life inside the womb, to your condemning, judgmental tone when talking about what you call "promiscuous" women.

There certainly are promiscuous women, just as there are promiscuous men (Magic Johnson comes to mind, i.e.. Also David Duchovny, who we are told has a medical condition called "sex addiction.") People are not perfect. In a word, people are not innocent. No one past the age of 12 is entirely innocent anymore. Fetuses are innocent. But their innocence has no moral content, because there is no choice involved.

Wanted pregnancies should be nurtured and cherished. And children are beautiful in their openness, in their sense of wonder, in their ability to be totally present in the moment, and in many other ways.

Having said that, I perceive more beauty in the moral complexity of a living person who has experienced and overcome and survived, who has compromised and made imperfect choices, than I do in the mere simple innocence,of a human life which has not yet been born, and thus of course cannot possibly have done anything wrong or made any bad choices.

I did not say that women who NEEDED abortion were promiscuous. The vast majority of abortions do not fit into this category.

And this is simply not true.

"compared to the rights of the mother that are infringed on by being forced to carry the baby to term"

This isn't as much a reply to you, but to all who bring it up. I've asked this question before, but never got an answer: Does anyone know of a woman who was "forced to carry the baby to term", that is, they didn't get an abortion because they couldn't afford it?

What do I mean by existential? I mean that when a woman is pregnant, she is carrying another life inside her body. People who say abortion is murder "get" the first point quite well. But they do *not* get the second point, at all. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say they don't respect what that point means, in the deepest sense.

Kathy, in this comment you repeatedly refer to prolifers as not 'getting' this point or not respecting it, but you fail to realize that the flip side of that is completely true for you. You, in this comment, after being pressed on it, say that you intellectually understand why some people consider abortion murder- but you show no understanding of how that concept motivates a deep, unwavering commitment to protect the fetal life. Instead, your initial comment to me was that unless I can prove otherwise, people who say that they believe in right to life for the fetus are actually motivated by a desire to repress women. That's incredibly offensive, but until several people pushed you into it you refused to state your position in less obnoxious ways.

What you seem incapable of is understanding that people can SEE your viewpoint but disagree with it. It seems that unless people hear you out and decide that you are correct and they are wrong, that you will continue to believe that they (we) are oblivious to your viewpoint.

It means that no matter how fervently and sincerely one believes that a fetus or a fertilized egg is a human being, or a child, or whatever, that "human life" or "child" is inside of the body of a woman. If a fetus has rights equal to a woman's, then the very least one can say is that the fetus's rights and the woman's rights are in conflict. Those rights are always in conflict, by definition. So it has to be an issue of whose rights prevail.

Of course there is a conflict between the rights of the pregnant woman and the fetus. I don't know anyone who denies that or ignores it. Most prolifers feel though that the right to life is such a primary and inalienable right that it trumps other concerns (which doesn't mean necessarily that we take those other concerns lightly.)

And making abortion illegal or very difficult to get is telling a woman that her body rights don't matter -- that the law can do whatever it wants to her body and she has no right to say no.

But 'the law', in the case of legal restrictions on abortion, doesn't 'do' anything to a woman's body- it proscribes what she can or cannot do to another individual. She and her sexual partner were the ones who 'did' something to her body. This is one emotional touchpoint that I see in your beliefs (and those of many other ardent abortion rights supporters, particularly female ones.) It appears to me that the crux of your argument really is that it's unfair that women have no choice by nature but to be the ones who can get impregnated during an act of intercourse, so that they can't just walk away from the consequences like men can. You seem to feel that the law should step in to remedy that by providing her with the choice of abortion. I think that's wrongly reasoned, and I also think it is a mistake for feminists to look to this as a solution. With abortion rights in place (meaning abortion on demand, not just abortions which are medically necessary for a woman's health, or rape/incest, or severe fetal abnormalities), I feel that men are actually MORE absolved of responsibility than ever before. A man is free to have sex and let the woman then bear the burden of 'choice' if she becomes pregnant as a result. So, there's a levelling of the playing field theoretically, to give the woman options to undo a pregnancy, but she is the one on whom the burden still falls and many women bear emotional scars about a choice that they really didn't want to make but felt coerced into (either by other people or by circumstance.) The leveling of the playing field is first of all in the wrong direction (trying to absolve both parties of dealing with the consequence of an unplanned pregnancy instead of getting both parties to take more responsibility for it) and it's ultimately unsatisfactory because for many women the choice of abortion has negative consequences potentially as bad or worse than carrying the pregnancy to term would have had.

One final point is in regard to several comments you've made about the reasons that women choose abortions. A few commenters have mentioned that the vast majority of abortions are NOT for the reasons that you had, and you've argued that they are incorrect in that assertion. Have you ever actually read the Guttmacher stats? By far, the majority of women who have abortions state the reasons as things that are called 'social' reasons- they feel they can't afford a child, or the child would inconvenience them, or they don't have a partner who is willing to help raise the child. Now, there's certainly nothing wrong with thinking along those lines- but the point is that for many women and the men that they were involved with, those choices are being made after a pregnancy has occurred instead of beforehand when the decisions wouldn't have necessitated the termination of a fetal life.

Anyway, my point here is that you seem to believe that your own situation is the norm with regard to abortion. No one denies that there are many women who face similar circumstances- but as a percentage of the 1 million plus abortions in the US each year, it's a very small fraction. I think you have to realize that most people have a much different reaction to the choice that you made vs. the choice to electively abort a fetus that is unwanted. Your situation shows compassion and care about the child you would have been bringing into the world, and the quality of life that he/she would have had. The other (much more common) situation does not regard the fetus as a growing child at all and makes a choice to dispose of it- even if there is some thought process there too to determine what the quality of life would be for a child under the circumstances, making that decision after the fetus already exists is treating it as an inconvenient ball of tissue instead of an actual human, living being. And its that capriciousness that is morally repugnant to a lot of people.

Kathy -

I do not want to keep any 'feud' going between the two us where you feel the need to completely ignore my questions and comments to you.

However, I have been sincere that I have no clue, none, as to what in my original post you found misogynist. I truly want to know what I said, or what you felt was implied in my words, that so offended you.

We have communicated strongly back and forth in the past, but never have either of us gotten to the point of completely refusing to communicate, so I have to assume whatever it was deeply offended you. And again, I have no idea why.

I cannot think of a nicer way to ask you to work through the apparent anger you seem to be feeling towards me about this issue.

"You're full of all kinds of assumptions about me aren't you?"

Not at all JD, I just figured that if you don't consider pregnancy a medical condition then you couldn't possibly have any clue. But it seems you do have children, and still have no clue. So maybe my assumption about you was that your assertion came from a place of ignorance and not from just ignoring the facts.


"Do women purposely perform an act that they KNOW can cause a pregnancy?
YES."

We don't withold medical care because people do something willingly that can cause a medical condition. We treat people who fall off of bikes. We treat people who cook hot things in the kitchen. We treat people who eat too much fat and cholesterol. We treat people who do all sorts of things that can and do cause medical conditions.

"Your $30K doesn't cover the worth of the child in a woman's uterus"

No, it doesn't. But it sure does become something of a stumbling block if you don't happen to have $30K to keep yourself and your potential child healthy. Doesn't it?

"A person that has sex regardless of the consequences, is by defintition, promiscuous."

From dictionary.com: promiscuous -- characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.

Obviously, you didn't know the correct definition in the "by definition" part of your comment, so I've generously provided it for you. Now go rethink your statement, with the consideration that I probably would have gotten an abortion if I had gotten pregnant in the last few years, during which I've been in a very stable and monogamous relationship with someone who is now my husband. Also consider that roughly half of abortions where "I can't afford a child" is given as the reason are for women who already have children. (Check out Guttmacher for this stat.)

"Yes, I do expect a woman to carry to term."

Good for you. Luckily, your expections of the women of the world are not law, and aren't particularly important to anyone but the women in your own life. See, women are allowed to have expectations *of themselves*, and for some women, those expectations don't involve carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.

@dduck12: "Many women are also asking their docs for libido enhancers. That ok?"

I'm not pretending to tell women what's best for their healthcare. Again: you're totally missing the point. I am not, nor is the original post, saying there's anything wrong with getting ED drugs, or libido enhancers, as the case may be. On the contrary, the point is that it is entirely inappropriate to tell other people what sorts of medical treatments they do and do not need.

"Does anyone know of a woman who was "forced to carry the baby to term", that is, they didn't get an abortion because they couldn't afford it?"

Yes. Couldn't afford it, didn't have a ride to the nearest urban area to get it, didn't realize it was an option, was threatened by the father or her parents if she did get it, didn't realize she was pregnant until after month 3 and couldn't make it 3 states over to get the more difficult procedure, and on and on and on. So: not just money, but access and pressure from others. BTW, these are not hypotheticals. I did Spanish-English translation at clinics a while back.

Austin,

Thank you. I'm going to post separately with an explanation. I wanted to post this to forestall any assumption on your part that I'm ignoring your request. What you need to understand is that (a) my circadian cycle is such that I am up very late and then sleep very late. It's 2 pm now and I just got up maybe half an hour ago, and just turned on the computer and just saw this request. I haven't even had my first cup of coffee yet.

You should take this as a sign of my regard for you that I'm explaining all this as opposed to just waiting until I'm awake to respond.

There will be a post here later this afternoon with an explanation.

Austin,

You wrote,

This whole debate seems to assume there is no benefit for women when their man has to take Viagra.

Okay. When I saw this, it angered me for a couple of reasons. Maybe most immediately important, it pushed a button: I have seen this sentiment expressed before, and there is a dismissive quality to it: as though the issue we were discussing -- of public funding being denied for abortion but included for erectile-enhancing medication -- was trivial and unimportant when placed next to the unquestionable benefit to women of an erect penis.

Also, although you may not have intended this meaning, your statement emphasized that very point (which had been explicitly mentioned here by, I think, roro), that it's just naturally assumed that the physical and psychological benefits of Viagra to the relationship between a man and a woman *are* benefits, while simultaneously ignoring or dismissing the fact that ending an unwanted, unviable pregnancy has similar very real benefits for that same relationship. Also, just focusing on the man, it is so taken for granted that a man being able to perform sexually is so so extremely important -- to the man, to the relationship -- but it is just totally ignored that a woman being able to have an abortion when she needs one is just as much of a benefit for a woman (and ultimately for any relationship she's in) as having the operational equipment to *make* a woman pregnant is for a man.

And this brings me to the third aspect of this that angered me. This underlying message, or assumption, that a woman should weep in despair when her man's penis isn't working, and leap for joy when it's "fixed" flies in the face of the *other* underlying message (and sometimes not so underlying -- often, in fact) that if a woman doesn't want children, she should abstain from sex. Sex is for procreation, not for pleasure, right? If a woman isn't ready for a pregnancy, she should not have sex at all. She should keep her legs closed. If she chooses to have sex, which she should never, ever be having at all, in her life, ever, unless she is prepared to get pregnant and have a baby, then if she does get pregnant, it is her fault, her doing, her choice, her responsibility -- and the man.... Wait a minute. What man? Do you see a man around here? I don't. :-|

The hypocrisy and the double standard inherent in touting the benefits of Viagra for a man while heaping all the blame on the woman for the results of sexual activity is unjust, and infuriating.

I understand (now) that you probably did not intend all of this baggage to accompany your statement. I only ask that you take another look and see how I could have taken it that way.

Also, by the way, I have not been ignoring you because of the original statement you made. I've been ignoring you because of the way you asked for an explanation. Your tone. There was a lot of mean-spirited, ad hominem, insulting, and belligerent stuff in there. When I saw your new comment -- the one I'm responding to now -- all my anger vanished. Words are powerful.

Kathy -- You're awesome. Whole thread. (((hugs)))

Thank you, roro. :-)

ME: "I did not say that women who NEEDED abortion were promiscuous. The vast majority of abortions do not fit into this category."

YOU: "And this is simply not true."


Kathy.... I have provided sources for my statement. YOU have not. Back up your statement. I already have.

"if you don't consider pregnancy a medical condition then you couldn't possibly have any clue. "

I didn't say it was not a medical condition. GEEZ!!!!! I said that it wasn't a "disease or affliction" like cancer, flu, a fleck in your eye, etc. Diseases and afflictions are not a "direct" result of your actions that you should take responsibility for. Pregnancy is a "direct" result of unsafe sex (irresponsibility).

Why do you keep suggesting that pregnancy is just like these diseases?

And I stand corrected by the "promiscuous" definition. But besides symantics, which obviously is more important that the meat of the argument I presented; my assertion stands, correctly, that unwanted pregnancies are from lack of self control, or lack of precaution. If I do not want cancer, there is nothing I can do to stop it. If I do not want a child, I can CHOOSE not to have sex.


"your expectations of women....aren't particularly important to anyone but the women in your own life"

It isn't MY expectations I am worried about, Roro. It should be SOCIETY'S expectations for self-discipline and personal responsibility. Like I said before, that is a HUGE problem in America. No one wants to take responsibility for their actions. It's tied to the entitlement mentality of liberals.

"if she does get pregnant, it is her fault, her doing, her choice, her responsibility -- and the man.... Wait a minute. What man? Do you see a man around here? I don't. :-|"

Once again, you are man hating. Above, I outlined personal responsibility for both men and women. Safe sex is the responsibility of both parties. Stepping up to their duty and responsibility when a child is CREATED; is the responsibility of both parties. This is a problem within our culture. Sex is seen as a hobby or something to be taken lightly. It just isn't the case. Many responsibilities are involved in the "simple" act of having sex. If a man isn't "around", then bust his butt in court for everything he has. If he doesn't have the honor to step up, then he must be forced to do so. If a woman doesn't have the honor to step up, she too must be forced to do so.

I was not clear. I meant that the female version should also be covered, per the ORIGINAL topic of this thread.

Dostoevsky called. He said the horse was still dead.

"Diseases and afflictions are not a "direct" result of your actions that you should take responsibility for."

(a) How about falling off a bike? You CHOSE to ride the bike, knowing that you could fall off. You CHOSE to eat at McDonald's every day, so we're not going to cover your double bypass. You CHOSE to deep fry those potatoes, so we're not going to cover the treatment for the burn.
(b) having an abortion IS taking responsibility for her actions. The fact that you don't like that option doesn't mean that's not the case. It's just an option that doesn't change the rest of your entire life.

"which obviously is more important that the meat of the argument I presented"

But it's not semantics. The point is that YOU do not know the circumstances behind the abortion of anyone. That's not semantics -- that's the real life issues involved in a decision that you do not and should not have any control over.

" It should be SOCIETY'S expectations for self-discipline and personal responsibility."

Again: abortion is one way to take responsibility. Sometimes it is the best way to take responsibility.

Your comment was in reply to me, perhaps by mistake (?), so I figured it had something to do with my comment. If not, ok I guess, but surely you can see my confusion.

I apologize. I meant the whole thread.

"Safe sex is the responsibility of both parties."

Yet it's very easy for one of the parties to skirt this responsibility, and essentially impossible for the other party. "Busting his butt" is a great option for those rich women whose men take off. Otherwise, out of luck. Your refusal to understand and acknowledge this very real distinction comes off as at best ignorance or at worst woman hating. If Kathy comes off as "man-hating", hell, I can't really blame her.

"Yes. Couldn't afford it, didn't have a ride to the nearest urban area to get it, didn't realize it was an option, was threatened by the father or her parents if she did get it..."

Which still sounds like this whole discussion is about something that won't make a bit of difference in the real world.

Roro.... we can spend all of our time going through every single knee scuff, eye problem, and tumor possible. None are the same as a pregnancy. It's a good attempt to further your belief, but it's not the case. Riding a bike does not directly result in falling off a bike. Riding a bike INCORRECTLY results in falling off of a bike. Having sex does not directly result in pregnancy, but having UNPROTECTED sex does.

Do you not see that point?

One again, I can only go by the reasons women give for abortions. 9% or less are for reasons other than choice (rape, incest, medical requirement, life of the mother).
My argument is not inclusive of these.

Abortion is NOT a way to take responsibility. It is a way to SHIRK responsibility.
Adoption is a way to take responsibility. Not having sex or having safe sex are ways to take responsibility.

"Your refusal to understand and acknowledge this very real distinction comes off as at best ignorance or at worst woman hating"

That's crap, roro. And you darned well know it.

Once again, you use the EXCEPTION to validate the MAJORITY. Just like Kathy.
Which, by the way, kathy has yet to address the issues I pointed out.
She doesn't care about answers, only about her opinion being right.

As are you.

Abortion is NOT a way to take responsibility. It is a way to SHIRK responsibility.
Adoption is a way to take responsibility. Not having sex or having safe sex are ways to take responsibility.

I would phrase that a little differently. I do understand why roro and other abortion rights proponents see the abortion decision as a means of taking responsibility. However, it's a means of doing so after the fact when other decisions could have preempted the need to make that decision (at least in most cases except for rape.) And combining that with the fact that the majority of people don't view abortion as a medical treatment performed on a woman's own body (without considering that another human life is ended in the process) is obviously the reason that there is objection to taking responsibility in this delayed fashion rather than during the time when the pregnancy could have been prevented by other behavioral choices.

The bike riding and junk food eating analogies don't hold up well, either, because neither activity is as directly related to the negative outcome as is pregnancy related to unprotected sex. Most people could ride their bikes on a daily basis for life without having any injuries necessitating medical treatment, and there are so many other factors in diseases like heart disease that you can't directly say that eating french fries will result in a heart attack for the majority of partakers.

Which still sounds like this whole discussion is about something that won't make a bit of difference in the real world.

Quite true. Unless next up we'll have a congressional bill introduced to ensure that all women have publicly funded transportation to abortion clinics, and escorts who will ensure that no other person will attempt to influence her decision to abort.

Christine,

First, thank you for this thoughtful comment -- it does help me understand your position a bit better.

That said....

The other (much more common) situation does not regard the fetus as a growing child at all and makes a choice to dispose of it- even if there is some thought process there too to determine what the quality of life would be for a child under the circumstances, making that decision after the fetus already exists is treating it as an inconvenient ball of tissue instead of an actual human, living being. And its that capriciousness that is morally repugnant to a lot of people.

If you've been to the Guttmacher site, which it appears you have, then you also know that the statistics on contraceptive use show that the overwhelming majority of women of childbearing age who are sexually active and do not wish to become pregnant are using some form of contraception. This hardly strikes me as defining "capriciousness" or having "no regard for the fetus as a growing child at all." It strikes me, actually, as demonstrating strong awareness on the part of women of the potential consequences of sex and taking responsibility for preventing that.

And yes, obviously contraceptives sometimes fail, but that does not mean the woman has been irresponsible. And if you're suggesting that sexually active women who use contraceptives still do not have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, then you are actually saying women who don't want children should not have sex, ever, at all. That, in my view, violates a woman's basic human rights, and just as a practical matter, is a complete non-starter.

It appears to me that the crux of your argument really is that it's unfair that women have no choice by nature but to be the ones who can get impregnated during an act of intercourse, so that they can't just walk away from the consequences like men can.

This is true. And perceptive on your part, since I never explicitly expressed that.

With abortion rights in place (meaning abortion on demand, not just abortions which are medically necessary for a woman's health, or rape/incest, or severe fetal abnormalities), I feel that men are actually MORE absolved of responsibility than ever before.

I don't see how, Christine. Men can walk away regardless, and they have done exactly that since the dawn of human history (as a general statement, obviously -- I don't want this to be taken as male-bashing). Whether abortion is legal or illegal, men can walk away and often do. Furthermore, even if the law catches up with a delinquent father, it's not going to help if he is unemployed and penniless, too. If you can point to statistics that show men were more responsible about the unwanted children they fathered before Roe v. Wade, please do.

...many women bear emotional scars about a choice that they really didn't want to make but felt coerced into (either by other people or by circumstance.

It seems to me the solution to that problem is to make choice more meaningful by restructuring society so that women who DO want to keep their babies can do so even if the fathers take off for parts unknown. The problem you are pointing to is not that women who want abortions regret them later, but rather that women who don't want abortions, or who are not clear and confident about their choice, are conflicted, have mixed feelings, etc., often are pushed in the direction of ending the pregnancy because they have no one to turn to and no way (at least that they can see) to make an independent, financially stable life without being dependent on the man who helped create the baby. Going back to criminalizing abortion and depending on unenforceable, un-realizable fantasies of a world in which men step up to the plate and women have someone to take care of them makes no sense at all to me. Why not think outside of the box and actually make it possible for women to have, raise, and support children on their own if such are the circumstances they find themselves in?

OK. I will try to keep things as civil and straightforward as I can.

First, I made no mention of abortion in my post. None. I was only making reference to some of the comments being made about viagra by others. Therefore any equating or relating of my comment about viagra to funding of abortion was done by the reader, not by the author.

Second, I am and always have been pro-choice, and have had posts since you have been on this board stating so. So, there should be no question about that.

Third, I have not directly expressed my opinion on the funding issue, so anything you decided you thought I was saying did not and could not have come from me. The closest I came was when I said ...language that supported current federal law against spending government funds may have made sense, or specific language using this bill to overturn that law or provide an exception, but to say no participating insurer can offer coverage seems draconian the other day about the Stupak Amendment (a comment, BTW, that you posted that you agreed with).

Fourth, your assertion of "your statement emphasized that very point (which had been explicitly mentioned here by, I think, roro), that it's just naturally assumed that the physical and psychological benefits of Viagra to the relationship between a man and a woman *are* benefits, while simultaneously ignoring or dismissing the fact that ending an unwanted, unviable pregnancy has similar very real benefits for that same relationship" is a logical fallacy. As I made no mention of abortion or its effect on couples, there is no basis to say 'because you commented on "A" but not "B", that is a negative inference on "B"'. To use a legal term, it assumes facts not in evidence. But I do agree I didn't write a long dissertation comparing and contrasting the myriad faults you found buried in my simple, straight-forward sentence.

Fifth, your comment that This underlying message, or assumption, that a woman should weep in despair when her man's penis isn't working, and leap for joy when it's "fixed" almost borders on misandry. Sex is indeed part of a healthy, adult relationship. Perhaps, in the name of hyper-PC-speak, I should have said, 'This whole debate seems to assume there is no benefit for the other partner when their partner has to take Viagra", but given your visceral reaction, I am not sure it would have helped.

Sixth, I made a follow-up post, after you accused me of misogyny, clearly spelling out the intent of my initial post. You however seem to have chosen to pretend I did not do so.

Seventh, Sex is for procreation, not for pleasure, right? WTF??? When have you seen me write ANYTHING remotely like that? I am as sexually liberated as they come, have been outspoken about that, have repeatedly stated that whatever two (or more) consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business and no one else.

Eighth, everything you wrote after the seventh point If a woman isn't ready for a pregnancy...I don't. :-| is again NOTHING remotely close to words I have ever written, and shows a deep anger at others that have written such stuff. But how am I supposed to defend myself against the words, thoughts and opinions of others, especially when I had no idea you were using them against me, and could not possibly have known?

Ninth, I started off in a very civil tone questioning you about your comments to me. You repeatedly refused to address my questions, continued to say my comments were misogynous, and hell yes, I got offended and defensive. Can you really blame me? Given my often expressed personal views on women and their equal rights to men, calling me or statements by me misogynist is truly offensive to me.

That brings us to the end of this issue. As I look over all of this in toto, there is no doubt in my mind that you dumped a shitload of garbage and anger you have in your mind at others for what they have said into my statement; words and thoughts that plain and simply were not there and would not be there from me.

While I appreciate your taking the time to spell out your reply to me and your candor in it, I have to admit it bothers me a lot, because almost nothing in there relates to words I have ever used here, opinions I have expressed, or positions I have taken.

I have re-read (numerous times) what I wrote. As I said earlier, I could have written it in completely gender-neutral words (to the extent one can discuss viagra in a gender-neutral manner). But even allowing for that, in my opinion, no one who did not read it with a preconceived desire to find misogyny in it and my words could possibly have done so.

I truly believe you have done me wrong on this one Kathy, and accused me of thoughts, opinions and attitudes that were not there or implied, and that I actually find repulsive in others.

Kathy.... I have provided sources for my statement. YOU have not. Back up your statement. I already have.

Since your statement was that most women who have abortions are pregnant because they were promiscuous, I am assuming that this request for sources is now a moot point, since you have acknowledged you did not know the correct definition of "promiscuous."

Your refusal to understand and acknowledge this very real distinction comes off as at best ignorance or at worst woman hating. If Kathy comes off as "man-hating", hell, I can't really blame her.

Yep. And as we know, "woman hating" is what the word "misogynist" means. <Meaningful pause.> And we both know how likely it is that the same men who accuse women of "male-bashing" are going to understand or admit that they are misogynistic. Seems like it just can't go both ways.

Riding a bike INCORRECTLY results in falling off of a bike. Having sex does not directly result in pregnancy, but having UNPROTECTED sex does.

And as a point of *fact,* as I wrote to CStanley, the overwhelming majority of women of childbearing age who are sexually active and do not want children are using contraception.

"this whole discussion is about something that won't make a bit of difference in the real world."

I have no idea what you mean here. The lack of access and affordability of abortions keeps women who want them from getting them. In the real world. Worse access and higher cost will make that more of an issue. ????

If you ride a bike INCORRECTLY you will still be treated for your injuries. Good lord JD. Are you being purposefully obtuse here?

"Abortion is NOT a way to take responsibility. It is a way to SHIRK responsibility"

That is your opinion. It is NOT mine.

You're missing my point, but as I did not explicitly spell it out, I will do so now. My intention and purpose in writing my explanation was not to state or imply that you intended all the hidden underlying meanings I laid out. What I'm saying to you is that your initial statement was not original with you -- it's a cultural cliche; a tired joke made over and over that comes with subtext and un-articulated baggage. You seem to be unaware that there is a history, a real, genuine attitude toward women that is being expressed even if you did not intend that meaning yourself.

It would have been good if you had already known this, but since you didn't, I'm fine with saying that it would be nice if you "got" it now that I'm explaining it to you. Clearly, you don't.

That being the case, I don't think there's anything further I can productively say to you on this subject.

"That's crap, roro. And you darned well know it."

Um, no. Statement stands as written. You come off as either ignorant of the facts or just not giving a flip about them.

"Once again, you use the EXCEPTION to validate the MAJORITY."

What "EXCEPTION"? What majority? The point is that you have no idea why women get abortions, you have no idea whether or not a woman can afford thousands in legal fees to go after an ex. Neither are your business, and what a woman does with her own body is not your decision. Whether her motives are pure or evil is not for you to decide. Whether she's having a "good" abortion or a "bad" abortion is not for you to decide. You are not the rule-maker. You are not in charge of other people's bodies or their behavior.

"only about her opinion being right.

As are you."

I could care less what you think of me, JD. What I do care is about the ability for me and for other women to be in charge of their own medical decisions, and tohave access to the medical care that affect their own bodies. That is truly my biggest concern about the entire issue.

Higher cost? Worse access? Nothing is being taken away, that's been covered. You're arguing for expanded access to federal funds.

For a medical procedure, $300 to $600 and you're done is cheap. These women aren't sitting on some isolated island. In the real world there are relatives, friends, state programs, and yes, charities that help with these kinds of things. I seriously doubt any woman who could get an abortion, but only if the federal government paid for it.

"You are not in charge of other people's bodies or their behavior."

And no one is asking to be. This is not a discussion on legal restrictions, but on funding restrictions. Do what you want; get what you want; pay for it yourself. Is that really so hard to understand?

Let me goose that gander.
You said: What I do care is about the ability for me and for other women to be in charge of their own medical decisions, and to have access to the medical care that affect their own bodies. That is truly my biggest concern about the entire issue."
Perhaps we could substitute "all people" for "me and other women". That would have you making a moderate statement.

You are correct that I am unaware that stating what I did the way I did is a culturally loaded statement full of hidden subtext and meaning, and generally known to society to be so.

Could you provide me some links about that? You have my curiosity up now on that matter )absolutely no pun intended).

Thanks.

Sure, dduck12. Any men who'd like an abortion should be able to get one too. Of course, if men needed abortions, it wouldn't even be an issue.

Yes, ProfElwood, it is a discussion on legal restrictions. Or perhaps you missed, like, 50 of the above comments about how women shouldn't be able to get abortions?

"Nothing is being taken away, that's been covered."

Um, huh? Seriously? Go back and read something -- anything -- on what the effects of the amendment will be. I really can't be in charge of filling in every little gap for you. Not just for this quote, but for the entire comment -- "islands" and "the real world" and all that.

"Yes, ProfElwood, it is a discussion on legal restrictions."
Yeah, I guess I missed that. Who on this thread is arguing for making abortion illegal?

"Of course, if men needed abortions, it wouldn't even be an issue."
You're probably right: we tend to take care of our problems ourselves. (I'm going to gone for a couple of days, so I'll have fun reading about how sexist that statement was when I get back.)

Sorry, you did not refer to abortions (I am Pro-choice), you said bodies. All I'm asking is for you to apply your standard for men also, in this case covering Viagra (also the women's version). Not fair?

The most recent example I am aware of was back a few months ago [actually, looking at the actual date of the article, more like almost a year ago.] when the WaPo published an article about a C.I.A. program that was trying to buy cooperation from Afghan warlords by giving away supplies of Viagra. Here is the article on Blogrunner, and some of the reaction to it.

Note there are two separate issues with this story: The story itself -- the C.I.A. program and whether it's a good idea or not -- and the reaction in the blogosphere to both the program itself and the reaction to it.

Sure it's fair, that was part of my original comment on this thread. The point, yet again, that men's decisions about their own health care are not called into questions or restricted. Women's are. Goodness me, with all the people who just did not understand what the original piece was saying, it mustn't have been very good satire.

Sorry, again. the article, satire or not, was about Viagra. A whole bunch of you dragged it off course.
I and others have said multiple times that fair is fair, or words to that effect, at least I did. I also said we are beating a dead horse. Dostoevsky is really getting annoyed.

dduck12, if you think that article was about Viagra, you didn't get it.

I bow to your superior perspicacity. I said it was about coverage for a drug.

"Since your statement was that most women who have abortions are pregnant because they were promiscuous, I am assuming that this request for sources is now a moot point, since you have acknowledged you did not know the correct definition of "promiscuous."


You know very well, Kathy, that I provided unbiased statistics as to THE REASON WOMEN HAVE ABORTIONS. I said nothing about statistics about promiscuity.

YOU STILL HAVE YET TO CONFIRM MY POST WITH THOSE STATS.
You simply choose to ignore it and say the exact opposite.
You said that most women have abortions because it is a health issue. I showed you proof to the contrary.

The VAST majority of abortions are because the woman does not want the baby - for a myriad of reasons.

It is THESE women that could have prevented the pregnancy through more responsible methods.
Contraception failure is less than 1% of the reason for abortions.

"As a point of fact...the overwhelming majority of women of childbearing age who are sexually active and do not want children are using contraception."

That's GREAT!
Once again..... EXCEPTION NOT THE RULE.

I'll say it one more time for you. Read it carefully. Ok?
Per The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI):
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion...


Rape: 1%
Incest: 0.5%
Health problems of mother: 12%
Health of baby: 13%

(NOTE: Not more than 13 percent listed the above reasons)


Unready to have child: 32%
Too immature to have child: 22%
Parents (grandparents) want it: 6%
To avoid single parenthood: 48%
Partner doesn't want child: 14%
Doesn't want any more children: 38%
Can't afford a baby right now: 73%
Unmarried: 42%


Another note: All of the reasons given for the second set could have been prevented through more responsible action or self control.

PREGNANCY IS NOT AN INJURY, ya dolt.
How obtuse is that?

(sorry for the dolt comment, but it fit the situation. I don't really think you're a "dolt")

I have no idea why women get abortions?

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion...

from the Allen Guttmacher Institute.
Go check it out, please.

And what a woman does with her own body is EVERYONE'S business if she is committing murder. You can go ahead and consider an unborn child as a lumpy mass of cells if that helps you sleep at night. That does not take away from the point that life begins at conception. Once the cells begin to divide and synapses begin to fire, you've got a human being whether you like it or not. Your calling a baby a "fetus" makes it a little less cold to kill it as well.


Even the Japanese count age from the date of conception - as do many other cultures. So once you're born, you are already nine months old.

Hey roro. Why is it illegal to commit suicide?
Isn't that A WOMANS BODY as well? Don't you have the right to hurt yourself or kill yourself?

No, that's illegal. Why aren't you arguing for suicide rights?

I don't have much to add to the recent discussion, but I do have some parenthetical remarks. But since they are somewhat off-topic, I'll first address the topic of being off-topic. I think after 100 or so comments the rules about "staying on topic" shouldn't apply. After reading and writing the first 181 comments, I think I've earned to the right to post about my pet hamster if I felt like it.:) Besides, I don't know what more can be said about the original topic that hasn't already been said.

roro80: "The point, yet again, that men's decisions about their own health care are not called into questions or restricted."

You're right, but it is the unique biology of women that makes the abortion issue controversial. Is there a medical procedure that exclusively applies to men that is comparable to abortion in the moral questions that it presents? I can't think of any. Is that fair? No. But neither is it fair that biology/mother nature/God/whatever has determined that women should bear the children and men don't have to. Obviously, men and women are different. If separate-but-equal is not really "equal", then women and men will never be "equal" in that sense because we will never be equivalent. It seems the best we can do is deal with that the best we can and not expect equivalent treatment in cases where clearly it is biologically impossible.

"Yet it's very easy for one of the parties to skirt this responsibility, and essentially impossible for the other party. “Busting his butt” is a great option for those rich women whose men take off."

I explained my position on the legality of abortion previously in this thread (I think it was this one--they've all run together in my head). I believe it should be illegal except when there are medical complications (which is quite broad, and in at least Kathy's opinion would make it legal most of the time) and in cases of rape or incest. I don't expect you to care what I think should be legal or illegal, and I understand that the court has ruled on the subject, but my point is this: I think the man who abandons the mother of his child has committed an act at least as immoral, and at least as worthy of legal prohibition, as the women who gets an abortion.

I'll say it one more time for you. Read it carefully. Ok?
Per The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI):

That link you provided is to an unknown person on an anti-choice site. It is not per the Alan Guttmacher Institute. He takes information from the AGI and then claims they're wrong. If you want statistics PER THE ALAN GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE SITE, then GO to the Alan Guttmacher Institute site.

I gave you a link to a highly respected, professional site and you give me a link to a site belonging to an individual who is unknown to anybody and has no credibility at all.

And then YOU tell ME to "Read it carefully, ok?"

You know very well, Kathy, that I provided unbiased statistics as to THE REASON WOMEN HAVE ABORTIONS. I said nothing about statistics about promiscuity.

JD, you are having trouble keeping track of your own misinformation. I never said that you said anything "about statistics about promiscuity." YOU said, repeatedly, that women who have abortions because they don't want or can't support the child are promiscuous. You defined promiscuous (paraphrasing) as having sex without taking precautions. Roro pointed out that your definition of "promiscuous" was incorrect. Here is your answer to her:

"And I stand corrected by the "promiscuous" definition. But besides symantics, which obviously is more important that the meat of the argument I presented; my assertion stands, correctly, that unwanted pregnancies are from lack of self control, or lack of precaution (my emphasis). If I do not want cancer, there is nothing I can do to stop it. If I do not want a child, I can CHOOSE not to have sex."

I don't think that you yourself know what point you're trying to make anymore. First you tell us that women have unwanted pregnancies because they didn't use contraception. Then when I show you reliable information demonstrating that most sexually active women of childbearing age who don't want to get pregnant DO use contraception, you (a) deny that it's true and give me a new link to a junk site; (b) tell me again that "the vast majority of abortions are because the woman does not want the baby -- for a myriad of reasons" -- which is not the same issue as the contraception issue; and then (c) tell me, additionally, that "It is THESE women that could have prevented the pregnancy through more responsible methods. Contraception failure is less than 1% of the reason for abortions." You conclude by repeating your mantra that if women don't want children they can choose not to have sex -- which also contradicts your simultaneous and previous assertions that you want women to "take precautions."

You seem not to understand the distinction between the reason for the pregnancy and the reason for the abortion. The first is because of, in most cases, contraceptive failure; and the second is because, in the majority of cases, the woman who is pregnant does not want, is not emotionally ready for, or cannot support a child at that time. The two are different. They're not the same. You also don't seem to be clear about which assertion you are trying to convince me of. Are you trying to argue that most women have abortions for social reasons, or are you trying to argue that most women have abortions because they did not take precautions. The first is probably true (which I argued against before, but CStanley persuaded me I was mistaken on); the second is most definitely NOT true.

And again:

"As a point of fact...the overwhelming majority of women of childbearing age who are sexually active and do not want children are using contraception."

That's GREAT!
Once again..... EXCEPTION NOT THE RULE.

I'll say it one more time for you. Read it carefully. Ok?
Per The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI):
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion...

No. You are the one who needs to read, and think, more carefully, not me. My statement that most women of childbearing age who are sexually active and don't want children are using contraception WAS AND IS CORRECT, per the AGI, which you can go and look at again if you want to. That is THE RULE, not the exception. Remember, try to keep this straight: *We are talking now about "taking precautions" -- being responsible, using contraception. We are NOT talking right now about WHY most women have ABORTIONS. We are talking right now about WHY most women have unintended and unwanted PREGNANCIES.

Edited to add: Okay, JD, here is the problem, right here. This line:

"Contraception failure is less than 1% of the reason for abortions."

No one is saying contraception failure is the reason for ABORTIONS. It is (most frequently) the reason for the UNWANTED PREGNANCY. The reason for the abortion is that the pregnancy is unwanted. The reason for the pregnancy is contraceptive failure.

Of course you do.

I'm just wondering: As a practical matter, what do you think the punishment for suicide should be?

I don't know how others feel, but I am thinking about how odd it is that JD has to get his Alan Guttmacher Institute information from "Johnston's Archive" rather than getting it from... well, say... the Alan Guttmacher Institute?

And it IS Alan, not Allen.

Even the Japanese count age from the date of conception - as do many other cultures. So once you're born, you are already nine months old.

Do you have a cite for this?

Nope. It would be a sacrament. :-)

Kathy, I don't have time to continue the discussion but just wanted to thank you too for this response. I find it so much better to speak in ways that help us understand each other instead of impugning motives...wouldn't you agree? We'll probably never agree on the substance of the issue, but we can better understand each other's perspective.

Just one brief comment and then I have to run- about the part where you agreed that your position is based on a desire to 'level the playing field' since women are the ones who bear more natural consequence of sexual activity- this really just speaks to our fundamental, philosophical disagreement over the role of government. I don't think it's desirable nor even close to being possible for government to do that in so many instances, so I never consider that as the role that government should play. Life just isn't fair, and there's no way that we're going to make it that way by fiat.

. If you want statistics PER THE ALAN GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE SITE, then GO to the Alan Guttmacher Institute site.

Can be found here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/371100...

This is the study that JD mentions. Its there Kathy.

TABLE 3. Percentage distribution of women having an abortion, by their most important
reason for having the abortion, 2004 and 1987
Reason 2004 1987
(N=957) (N=1,773)
Not ready for a(nother) child†/timing is wrong 25 27
Can’t afford a baby now 23 21
Have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/
children are grown 19 8***
Don’t want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems 8 13***
Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young 7 11**
Would interfere with education or career plans 4 10***
Physical problem with my health 4 3
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus 3 3
Was a victim of rape <0.5 1
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion <0.5 1
Parents want me to have an abortion <0.5 <0.5
Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant <0.5 1***
Other 6 1
Total 100 100

Now it is most certainly not irresponsible for a woman with some of these objections to want an abortion, but it is irresponsible for women with these objections to have engaged in sexual activity if they didn't have access to contraception and the day after pill if that contraception failed (excepting in cases of rape and the health of the mother being endangered by the pregnancy).

East Asian age reckoning is a concept and practice that originated in China and is used in East Asian cultures. Several East Asian cultures, such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mongolia, Taiwanese and Vietnamese, share this traditional way of counting a person's age, in which a person's age is counted starting from conception, rather than from physical birth. Newborns start at one year old, and each passing of a New Year, rather than the birthday, adds one year to the person's age; this results in people being between 1 and 2 years older in Asian reckoning than in the Western version.

From Encyclopedia Britanica and Wikipedia (read it in encyclo, cut it from Wiki).

Does it matter, Kathy. Even when I cite stuff, you don't actually address the information, you attack its pertenance or validity. The AGI info from the site I gave is accurate. It is merely the REASONS women have abortions.

As I've said at least three times now, most women of childbearing age who are sexually active but don't want children were using contraception at the time they became pregnant.

JD--

It does matter. And when you cite something on the Internet, you are supposed to provide either a link or some other way for the person you are speaking with to easily find it. How on earth am I supposed to find the above on Wikipedia with no link, no title, no way to identify or find the article on Wikipedia?

Even when I cite stuff, you don't actually address the information, you attack its pertenance or validity.

And that is because most of the time when you "cite stuff," it *isn't* pertinent, even if valid, and usually I can't even find it (see above in this same comment).

"As I've said at least three times now, most women of childbearing age who are sexually active but don't want children were using contraception at the time they became pregnant."

Ok, Kathy. You've missed the original assertion, again.

Most sexually active women of childbearing age but don't want children were using contraception at the time they became pregnant?

SO WHAT? That's obvious!!!!!! If they WANTED children, they wouldn't have used contraception!!!!!

Now... Let's make that statement pertinent, shall we?
Why do most women get abortions? Is it because "most" had failed contraception? No.

That is what I have been saying this entire time!!!! This is what is so darned frustrating.

I site WHY women have abortions.
You come back with some health-class information about women who don't want children use contraception? What does that have to do with MY statement?

GEEZ!

Why do most women get abortions? Is it because "most" had failed contraception? No.

Here is the logical sequence again, JD.

1. Woman is sexually active but does not want to have a child.
2. Woman uses contraception to prevent pregnancy.
3. Contraceptive fails to work as it should.
4. Woman becomes pregnant.
5. Woman does not want to be pregnant (refer back to number 1) and decides to have an abortion.

Here is JD's argument:

1. If a woman does not want to have a baby, she should be responsible.
2. Definition of being responsible:
(a) not have sex
(b) use contraception
3. Woman chooses responsible option b: Use contraception.
4. Contraception fails, woman becomes pregnant, woman has abortion.

Now let's revisit what you said above:

Kathy. You've missed the original assertion, again.

Most sexually active women of childbearing age but don't want children were using contraception at the time they became pregnant?

SO WHAT? That's obvious!!!!!! If they WANTED children, they wouldn't have used contraception!!!!!

Ummmm, yeah... that's true... so why have you been saying that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant she should act responsibly by not having sex, OR by using contraception?

Continuing:

Now... Let's make that statement pertinent, shall we?
Why do most women get abortions? Is it because "most" had failed contraception? No.

Ummmm, no.... It's because they don't want to have a child. I agree with that. Although I feel I must add, in the interest of accuracy, that I never said most women have abortions because they didn't use contraception. I said that most unwanted pregnancies happen because contraception fails. After all, if you're having an abortion, it must mean you're pregnant, right? And if you don't want to be pregnant and you were using contraception, it must mean your contraceptive method failed, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't need an abortion, right?

Now, going back to something you have said repeatedly: Those women (the ones who have abortions because they don't want a child) are irresponsible because if they didn't want a child, they should have either not had sex or used contraception.

But most of them DID use contraception!

Then you say,
I site WHY women have abortions.
You come back with some health-class information about women who don't want children use contraception? What does that have to do with MY statement?

Here's what it has to do with your statement: Most women who have abortions don't want the baby. Most women who have abortions are pregnant (well, actually all women who have abortions are pregnant). Most women who don't want children were using contraception at the time they had sex, and became pregnant. Therefore, your repeated claim that women who have abortions are irresponsible because they should have used contraception doesn't make sense.

Finally you say,

That is what I have been saying this entire time!!!! This is what is so darned frustrating.

To which I reply:Oh, JD. Tell me about it. I know exactly how you feel.

Kathy..... For the love of pete, you're killing me.


1. I stated that most women have abortions for reasons other than your many exceptions (rape, incest, health, and contraception).
2. The vast majority have abortions for other reasons. You dismissed my numbers on that because you didn't like the website. Unless you can show me other numbers as to WHY women have abortions, then I have to rely on what I have found.
3. I stated that women who could not afford children, should probably not have sex, or at a bare minimum, triple up on contraception (the words I used were "extreme precaution" I believe).


Where in the world does a statistic that says that most women who don't want sex use contraception fit into those statements? Yes, I got your intent from your last post. But I don't believe it fits my original assertion that MOST women have abortions for reasons other than for reasons they cannot control as named above. The vast majority of abortions are because the woman can't afford it, or doesn't want it, or is too immature, etc.

1. I have granted you this point. I granted you this point several comments ago. I told you that CStanley had persuaded me that the majority of abortions are for "social" reasons (can't afford, don't want, not ready, etc.). Perhaps your confusion, then, is that you somehow have not "taken in" or absorbed, the fact that I am agreeing with you now on this point.

2.See number 1, above.

3. I do not recall your using the phrase "triple up on contraception." You used the phrase "take precautions" which must mean "use contraception" because I don't know what else it could mean. You did not say "extreme precaution." You said that women who could not afford children or didn't want them for whatever reason should either abstain from sex or take precautions (i.e., use contraception). You did say "use contraception" but you did not say "extreme contraception."

Where in the world does a statistic that says that most women who don't want sex use contraception fit into those statements?

Nowhere, because that is not what the statistic says, and it's not what I said it said.

As I'm sure you would agree, contraception is not an issue for women who do not want sex.

Contraception is an issue for women who DO want sex but DON'T want children.

But I don't believe it fits my original assertion that MOST women have abortions for reasons other than for reasons they cannot control as named above. The vast majority of abortions are because the woman can't afford it, or doesn't want it, or is too immature, etc.

And as I've said, I agree with that assessment. But somehow, in your mind, the contraceptive issue seems to be one of the reasons you think a woman might have an abortion. You keep saying that most women have abortions because they can't afford, don't want, etc., the baby, NOT because their contraceptive method failed. But what I am trying to find some way to get you to understand is that it's not either/or. It's not either the woman had an abortion because she couldn't afford a baby, or a woman had an abortion because her contraception failed. "Reason for abortion" and "use of contraception" are different in *kind.* They are not in the same category. A woman can have an abortion because she can't afford a baby, EVEN IF she DID use contraception. And that is because contraceptives can fail -- even if you use more than one method.

You seem to believe, or you seem to be saying, at least, that *either* a woman has an abortion because she can't afford a child, *or* she has an abortion because her contraceptive method failed. And that does not make sense. Here is what makes sense: A woman gets pregnant after her contraceptive method fails and she has an abortion because she cannot afford a child.

Is this clear to you now, what I am trying to say to you?

Now, if you come back at me with something like, "Kathy, you still don't understand; I told you that most women have abortions because they can't afford a child, not because of failed contraceptive method," I am going to scream so loud and so long that you WILL hear it in Texas, or wherever it is you are.