Is our President for real? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-06-2003, 04:52 PM   #31
Acrobat
 
Zooropa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 421
Local Time: 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But this isn't the point. This "Doctor" doesn't prescribe these drugs to unmarried women because of his own religious belief. In his own bent perspective he believes this will promote pre-marital sex.

No the science in this area is not perfect, but the fact that you support Bush's decision to put him in this position is appalling to me and probably to most women.

to believe that a person should wait for marraige to have sex is not a "bent" persepective. There are many who feel that this is appropriate. Nor is it wrong to try and discourage it, if at all possible.

I never said I outright support Bush's decision. Read my posts, quite the contrary, I don't like religion dictating policy, however to me, it's the lesser of two evils, I rather have him, than an uber-liberal who promotes abortion, radical & unproven scientific methods etc.

The primary point I'm trying to make here, and throughout this thread, is that many assume that the science is completely beneficial, and that Hager's practices are completely detrimental. This is simply not the case. It can be compelling argued that the exact opposite is true. That is all I'm trying to say. My apologies if you found this appalling.
__________________

__________________
Zooropa is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 04:55 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But this isn't the point. This "Doctor" doesn't prescribe these drugs to unmarried women because of his own religious belief. In his own bent perspective he believes this will promote pre-marital sex.
Exactly. Women should have the choice of using condoms, birth control pills, or both.

Only in a minority of cases does the common birth control pill cause the abortion of a fertilized egg.
__________________

__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 04:56 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zooropa



to believe that a person should wait for marraige to have sex is not a "bent" persepective. There are many who feel that this is appropriate. Nor is it wrong to try and discourage it, if at all possible.
It's not up to a doctor to pronounce a moral judgment on someone.
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 05:05 PM   #34
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 07:03 PM
Quote:
to believe that a person should wait for marraige to have sex is not a "bent" persepective. There are many who feel that this is appropriate. Nor is it wrong to try and discourage it, if at all possible.
I didn't say that waiting until marriage was the "bent" part. In fact I admire that thinking very much. His thinking that not prescribing birth control will control this is bent. Teenage sex needs not to be promoted. This type of thinking is exactly one of the problems leading to overpopulation in Africa and other such countries like those where the pope has outlawed birth control for so long.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 05:06 PM   #35
Acrobat
 
Zooropa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 421
Local Time: 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by meegannie


It's not up to a doctor to pronounce a moral judgment on someone.
But it is up to the doctor to be watchful over a patients health. Like it or not, wrong or right, most doctors will agree pre-marrital sex is more risky (health wise) then marrital sex. If he feels this way he has every right to treat his patients in this manner. PLUS, like I alluded to earlier, condoms are more effective than prescription contraceptives.
__________________
Zooropa is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 05:09 PM   #36
Acrobat
 
Zooropa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 421
Local Time: 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I didn't say that waiting until marriage was the "bent" part. In fact I admire that thinking very much. His thinking that not prescribing birth control will control this is bent. Teenage sex needs not to be promoted. This type of thinking is exactly one of the problems leading to overpopulation in Africa and other such countries like those where the pope has outlawed birth control for so long.
Condoms = cheaper, more effective, prevent STD's, no harmful side affects.
Education = inevitably, young teens & young adults are going to be sexually active. Educating them is the only way to decrease their sexual encounters, and if they have them, to use a condom.
__________________
Zooropa is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 05:19 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zooropa


But it is up to the doctor to be watchful over a patients health. Like it or not, wrong or right, most doctors will agree pre-marrital sex is more risky (health wise) then marrital sex. If he feels this way he has every right to treat his patients in this manner. PLUS, like I alluded to earlier, condoms are more effective than prescription contraceptives.
No, it's up to the patient to be watchful over their health. You can't judge the riskiness of pre-marital sex v. marital sex. Pre-marital sex doesn't necessarily mean promiscuity, nor does marital sex guarantee monogamy. By refusing to give an unmarried woman birth control, for absolutely no medical reason, a doctor is making a moral judgment in assuming that woman has multiple partners and would be "safer" married. It doesn't matter what's more effective. Women should be allowed to choose whether to use both, either, or neither.
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 05:26 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by meegannie


No, it's up to the patient to be watchful over their health. You can't judge the riskiness of pre-marital sex v. marital sex. Pre-marital sex doesn't necessarily mean promiscuity, nor does marital sex guarantee monogamy. By refusing to give an unmarried woman birth control, for absolutely no medical reason, a doctor is making a moral judgment in assuming that woman has multiple partners and would be "safer" married. It doesn't matter what's more effective. Women should be allowed to choose whether to use both, either, or neither.
Bravo!

We all know this isn't about health, but enforcing arbitrary Christian moral judgments on people. With books like "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now," it is obvious that he doesn't give a flying fuck about "questioning science," as much as it is ignoring all science that goes contrary to his religious beliefs.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 05:30 PM   #39
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 08:03 PM
Wow - I find it hard to believe that on a panel of many doctors, that you can't have a variety of beliefs.

Wouldn't you want the panel or committee to sort of represent the views of the country? So, by having this one doctor, with these particular views is just going destroy this committee.

Come on people, work with me here.

Mark
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 05:32 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
Wow - I find it hard to believe that on a panel of many doctors, that you can't have a variety of beliefs.

Wouldn't you want the panel or committee to sort of represent the views of the country? So, by having this one doctor, with these particular views is just going destroy this committee.

Come on people, work with me here.
There is a difference between having differing opinions, and having a quack be the head of the committee.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 05:36 PM   #41
Acrobat
 
Zooropa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 421
Local Time: 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by meegannie


No, it's up to the patient to be watchful over their health. You can't judge the riskiness of pre-marital sex v. marital sex. Pre-marital sex doesn't necessarily mean promiscuity, nor does marital sex guarantee monogamy. By refusing to give an unmarried woman birth control, for absolutely no medical reason, a doctor is making a moral judgment in assuming that woman has multiple partners and would be "safer" married. It doesn't matter what's more effective. Women should be allowed to choose whether to use both, either, or neither.
errr, I can find numerous studies that statistically show that premarital sex puts an individual at a much higher risk of contracting STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Therefore there is a medical reason to refuse prescription contraceptives. I concede, that you are somewhat right about watching over one's health, but doctors do have the right to educate an individual on the risks of unhealthy behaviors/lifestyles, and to avoid potentially harming an individual (as in the case of prescription contraception) when there is a perfectlt safe, AND more effective means of birth control readily available. This isn't an issue of choice, because the decision has profound affects on others as well. You may argue all you wish about choice, but it is not as if their is no alternative to prescription contraceptives, and as I've alluded to earlier, these presriptions all have harmful side affects.
__________________
Zooropa is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 05:39 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zooropa
errr, I can find numerous studies that statistically show that premarital sex puts an individual at a much higher risk of contracting STD's and unwanted pregnancies.
First off, this statement is filled with logical fallacies. STDs do not know the difference between marital sex and premarital sex. If any studies actually say that premarital sex, then these studies are bad.

Promiscuity puts an individual at a higher risk of contracting STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and it doesn't take an expensive study with stuffy academics to figure this out.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 05:43 PM   #43
Acrobat
 
Zooropa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 421
Local Time: 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


First off, this statement is filled with logical fallacies. STDs do not know the difference between marital sex and premarital sex. If any studies actually say that premarital sex, then these studies are bad.

Promiscuity puts an individual at a higher risk of contracting STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and it doesn't take an expensive study with stuffy academics to figure this out.

Melon
While true, not completely. A married couple generally knows far more about their partners sexual history, than an unmarried couple.

PLUS....
CONDOMS ARE SAFER.

Are all you people condomophobes????
__________________
Zooropa is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 05:44 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zooropa
While true, not completely. A married couple generally knows far more about their partners sexual history, than an unmarried couple.

PLUS....
CONDOMS ARE SAFER.

Are all you people condomophobes????
You're not supposed to use condoms. You're supposed to have faith, read the Bible, and pray to Jesus so that the sperm won't hit the egg.



Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 05:45 PM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zooropa


errr, I can find numerous studies that statistically show that premarital sex puts an individual at a much higher risk of contracting STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Therefore there is a medical reason to refuse prescription contraceptives. I concede, that you are somewhat right about watching over one's health, but doctors do have the right to educate an individual on the risks of unhealthy behaviors/lifestyles, and to avoid potentially harming an individual (as in the case of prescription contraception) when there is a perfectlt safe, AND more effective means of birth control readily available. This isn't an issue of choice, because the decision has profound affects on others as well. You may argue all you wish about choice, but it is not as if their is no alternative to prescription contraceptives, and as I've alluded to earlier, these presriptions all have harmful side affects.
Pre-marital sex in and of itself does not put a person at a higher risk for STD's and pregnancies. Having muliple partners and unprotected sex does. Couples can have many reasons for not marrying, and a doctor should not be able to refuse a woman birth control if she requests it and there is no valid medical reason not to prescribe it. The issue here is that this doctor is willing to provide birth control pills to married women, but somehow they have more side effects for unmarried women? It's also important to note that he doesn't supply contraceptive "devices" to unmarried women either. If he's worried about the possible side effects of birth control pills and that's why he doesn't want to prescribe them to his patients, why can't he fit unmarried for diaphrams or cervical caps, which don't have the side effects of the pill?
__________________

__________________
meegannie is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com