Did you watch O'Rieley last night

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
But pregnancy is a medical condition, and contraceptives are taken for other reasons such as period control-which is also a medical condition. Can be a very difficult one to deal with.

Like cori said, why should we pay so that a guy can have sex? That's medically necessary? For argument's sake. Of course I know that e d is a medical condition and I'm not making light of that and I wouldn't-and that it has very real emotional and psychological effects. But either O'Reilly is ignorant of medical facts, women's health issues, or is sexist leaning in his thinking. Or all of the above.
 
One of the few "Conservative" stances I could actually find myself in agreement with (which is a scary thought in itself).:hmm: The difference being, that I think not covering birth control leaves us in a bigger mess than covering it does, so I support it mainly for pragmatic reasons. :shrug:

Why are so few people aware of the fact that birth control pills ARE used for medical reasons? Control of ovarian cysts is one reason. Maintenance of hormonal levels is another.
 
Just to add, I've used the bcp for medical reasons all my adult life. I have a genetic condition where my hormone levels are normal, but the ratio of active:inactive form of a certain hormone are elevated. There are specific birth control pills which equilibrate the ratio, so that your endocrine system isn't all out of whack.

But I'm a woman, so this isn't a medical condition?
 
But pregnancy is a medical condition, and contraceptives are taken for other reasons such as period control-which is also a medical condition. Can be a very difficult one to deal with.

I was only talking about contraceptives as a means of birth control.

Like cori said, why should we pay so that a guy can have sex? That's medically necessary?

You've basically answered your own question here:

Of course I know that e d is a medical condition and I'm not making light of that and I wouldn't-and that it has very real emotional and psychological effects.

I guess my main gripe with the entire viagra/birth control debate is that it's often framed as a male/female issue; coverage for male sex thingy, and no coverage for female sex thingy, this isn't the way I look at it. In my view, you're not paying so a guy can have sex, you're paying for a guy with a medical condition (e.d.) that needs treatment.

But either O'Reilly is ignorant of medical facts, women's health issues, or is sexist leaning in his thinking. Or all of the above.

Just curious, would you lump me in any of the above mentioned categories?
 
Just to add, I've used the bcp for medical reasons all my adult life. I have a genetic condition where my hormone levels are normal, but the ratio of active:inactive form of a certain hormone are elevated. There are specific birth control pills which equilibrate the ratio, so that your endocrine system isn't all out of whack.

But I'm a woman, so this isn't a medical condition?

If this was a response to my post, you're jumping the gun here a bit. I'm well aware that there are medical reasons for birth control. I was solely talking about birth control as a means of not getting pregnant.
 
Why are so few people aware of the fact that birth control pills ARE used for medical reasons? Control of ovarian cysts is one reason. Maintenance of hormonal levels is another.

Taking the risk of coming off as ignorant, it's not a thing guys care so much about. Maybe the topic comes up with a female friend, or the girl friend, but not necessarily. So you normally don't inform yourself so much about the different aspects of contraceptives except that they are a way to avoid pregnancy.
I also don't know that our teacher taught us these aspects when it came up in biology classes.
 
Great, if O'Reilly doesn't want to pay for his wife's birth control, then the easiest solution is for him not to take the Viagra.

Problem solved.
 
Just curious, would you lump me in any of the above mentioned categories?

No-not at all. Sorry if you took it that way and took offense. Wasn't intended :)

But you can't just say birth control as a means of contraception because it isn't just and only that ever. So how can you separate it? Just like Viagra isn't just a way to have sex, because men who use it generally have e d, a medical condition. Not always because some guys who are using it don't have e d and are just..well no need to get graphic.
 
Taking the risk of coming off as ignorant, it's not a thing guys care so much about. Maybe the topic comes up with a female friend, or the girl friend, but not necessarily. So you normally don't inform yourself so much about the different aspects of contraceptives except that they are a way to avoid pregnancy.

Well that's sort of the point, it's "ignorance" about women's health issues. Ignorance isn't really the best word to use because I know it has a negative connotation- I would prefer unaware, uninformed. Like you said also, it's not taught. It's seeing birth control from a male point of view, ie avoiding unwanted pregnancy. Nothing wrong with a man who can see that and/or inform themselves. But with someone like O'Reilly, I am doubtful about that happening. I wish McCain would inform himself.

In general I think O'Reilly is ignorant, so that's why I used that word

I'm the first to admit that I'm ignorant about many men's health issues too-but I don't have my own tv show and I'm not running for President. I inform myself though if I have questions, and I accept tutoring :wink:
 
Yeah, that's right. I also don't see it as utterly ignorant not to get too involved in all women's issues, as women don't necessarily get deeply involved in all men's issues. I mean, there are hundreds of "unisex" diseases I don't get into much, as long as it doesn't affect me or someone I care for, bar for having a grasp on it. I think it's pretty normal.

On the other hand, if someone wants to talk about such an issue, especially in public, and wants to make or discuss policies, that person should get informed.
I don't think there is much hope for O'Reilly or his ilk, as they are pretty much consumed by themselves and see what they say as sort of undeniable truth. I don't care that much about what he says. It's just sad others do.

That doesn't mean, of course, I haven't listen to someone and taken that as truth when in fact it was wrong.
 
I guess my main gripe with the entire viagra/birth control debate is that it's often framed as a male/female issue;

I think that you need to put this in an American historical context, though. The fight for birth control, which was finally won in the courts in Griswold, WAS an inherent part of the fight for women's rights 3-4 decades ago. They go hand in hand, and it is really a credit to the women's movement that birth control is even legal federally in the U.S. I'm not sure how familiar Europeans are with this fact, and certainly to those of us outside of the U.S. it may be strange, but until relatively recently, there was no right to chemical birth control in that country.

So it is framed as a male/female issue precisely because it has been that in the country that we are talking about. That may not be the case in The Netherlands (I have no idea), but in the context of what we are talking about here, it makes perfect sense.
 
Actually both can be used for medical reasons. There are men that are prescribed viagra for circulation issues, and there are women who are prescribed birth control to maintain hormone issues.

The truth is more women use it for medical reasons than men.

O'Reiley is just an ignorant bafoon.
 
I don't think there is much hope for O'Reilly or his ilk, as they are pretty much consumed by themselves and see what they say as sort of undeniable truth. I don't care that much about what he says. It's just sad others do.

That doesn't mean, of course, I haven't listen to someone and taken that as truth when in fact it was wrong.


I know, who should care what he says-but the fact is that his show gets big ratings and many people do care and do agree with him. And in light of what I posted in that other thread yesterday about birth control and what the Bush administration is trying to do, I have to wonder how far that ignorance extends. That combined with a certain attitude that certainly appears to be politicizing women's health issues and putting the imposition of their moral values and agenda over that health. Now that's scary to me.
 
I know, who should care what he says-but the fact is that his show gets big ratings and many people do care and do agree with him. And in light of what I posted in that other thread yesterday about birth control and what the Bush administration is trying to do, I have to wonder how far that ignorance extends. That combined with a certain attitude that certainly appears to be politicizing women's health issues and putting the imposition of their moral values and agenda over that health. Now that's scary to me.

That's certainly right, and pretty frightening. If that should be an indicator, I've read just yesterday that the Daily Show generates more than a million viewers each evening, and then there was this figure of 8.5 million listeners to this Savage guy.
And well, only a few listen to or watch these shows to hear the other side.

Bush's and also McCain's proposed policies, like the ones on contraception, are so driven by conservative religious ideologies that it's definitely, from my perspective anyways, some worrying development that is going on.


That's very elitist of you.

:flirt:

What can I do, I'm a European? Since Kerry we know that Europeans are an elitist bunch you rather not associate yourself with. :(

But I will stand by my convictions. :D

Reminds me of a column by Maureen Dowd about Bush's last trip to France, where she started pointing out that the term "elitist" in France still has rather a positive connotation.
 
Bill O'Reilly is THE most intelligent, honest, fair, articulate, blunt, fantastic, impressive journalist on TV.......and it's a shame that there aren't more journalists like him.

Both he and George W. Bush are my heros!!!

O'REILLY ROCKS!!!

Why exactly, is George W. Bush your hero?

He has taken my country, America into a war that shouldn't have happened! And how many of us have paid the price, not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraq's who have died.

His policies with Palestine and the entire Middle East is terrible. He doesn't even want to listen to the other side.

Our news is slanted. I am so sick of hearing the words Muslim and terrorist in the same sentence. Do you think that for one minute, that 37 million Irish Americans would have tolerated "Irish + American = British hater and IRA extremist." Nope, not for a New York second!
 
but someone like o'rielly needs this kind of attention in order to get ratings, and thus stay in business.

if he's so clueless... i guess i just don't think people realise how much they're actually supporting him and others like him by watching him just to get angry.

sounds stupid to me, really.
 
Wow, heated interview there! That was the first and last Bill O'Reily interview I am going to watch. It almost reminded me of WWF wrestling. Is that really what news is like these day!?! I am glad I tune out that crap.
 
I was watching Fox news and they were discussing that interview and The View and how they called Sarah Palin 'dumb'. They actually said that The View was dangerous and what Bill said was needed.
Last time I checked The View was an entertainment show and Bill was a journalist/reporter! That network is fucked!
 
Even though Barney was blowing smoke (as usual).... O'Reilly should have treated a sitting congressman with a little more respect.
 
Back
Top Bottom