Is our President for real?

[Zooropa]

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.

 

[meegannie]

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]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[Zooropa]

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]

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.

 

[meegannie]

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.

 

[melon]

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

 

[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.

Mark

 

[melon]

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

 

[Zooropa]

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.

 

[melon]

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

 

[Zooropa]

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????

 

[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????

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

 

[meegannie]

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?

 

[anitram]

PLUS....
CONDOMS ARE SAFER.

Are all you people condomophobes????

What I don't understand is why are pills OK for married women but not for single women? That certainly indicates his belief that married women can have as much sex as they want, while single women better be sitting around with their chastity belts.

Condoms may be safer in terms of side effects, but I'd like to know which studies you're citing that state they are more effective in preventing pregnancy?

 

[meegannie]

PLUS....
CONDOMS ARE SAFER.

Are all you people condomophobes????

People have latex allergies. Condoms break. Unmarried couples might feel that a condom impairs intimacy. Condoms combined with birth control are more effective in preventing pregnancies than either method alone.

 

[Zooropa]

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

The one thing I hate about being a Republican, is trying to defend the religious right, for even when they are right in principle, their execution and religious fanatism are so hard to get around.

Ay Carumba.........

 

[BVS]

A married couple generally knows far more about their partners sexual history, than an unmarried couple.

A ring doesn't have the power to automatically give you wisdom.

You've read way too much Tolkein!

Marriage had nothing to do with this, faithfullness does. And there are a lot more faithful non married couples out there than you are giving credit for.

The problem is the religious right has no place in our political system. Bush has let them trickle in from all angles and I find it odd that there are some seemingly intelligent Republicans that defend these moves. But the only reason is because it's Bush. It turns into a dangerous trip of the blind leading the blind

 

[DrTeeth]

People seem to be forgetting that you can be in a long term relationship without being married, or ever wanting to get married. If it were up to this guy, those people wouldn't be allowed to have the savest form of sex (if you are smart, you use a condom as well a medical contraceptive).

The assumption that a married couple know more about each others sexual history is nothing more than that..., an assumtion.

And when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.

 

[Zooropa]

ARGHHHH!!!! so much to say, not enough time. Gotta go to work. I will return tomorrow, if the thread is still going....

 

[jkayet]

This has sort of already been said, but i just have to reiterate the point about married v. unmarried. If we assume that someone can decide married couples should get contraception but not unmarried couples, then you'd necessarily have to look at the state of the marriage too. There's no way to enforce that married couples are honest and open to each other, therefore the idea of giving contraceptives JUST to them is misguided. We aren't going to start legislating fidelity and monogamy, so it seems rather off-base.

 

[pax]

That said, condoms are by far the most effective form of birth control, including prescription contraceptives. So theoretically, if you regularly use a condom, you won't need any other form of birth control.

I'd like to know where you're getting this information. I was always told that it's best to use 2 forms of contraception: a condom (primarily to prevent STDs) and something like the Pill or the diaphragm to prevent pregnancy.

Planned Parenthood's website gives condoms 86-98% success rate in preventing pregnancy (which, admittedly, goes up near 100% IF THE MAN WITHDRAWS--and, ladies, how often does that happen? ). Meanwhile, the Pill (the combination Pill, *not* the progestin-only pill, made a mistake) is 95-99.9% effective ALL BY ITSELF. (I also checked WebMD--the link is listed a few posts later--which gives a success rate of 97& to the Pill, so PP isn't inflating its numbers.)

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/bc/cchoices.html

 

[gvox]

condoms are by far the most effective form of birth control, including prescription contraceptives. So theoretically, if you regularly use a condom, you won't need any other form of birth control.

What??!?!

Most of what has been said made sense up to this point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my information tells me the most effective forms of contraception are, in this order:

1. Abstinence
2. the "pill"
3. IUD

The condom is way down the list as far as I know.

Interesting link I I found:

http://www.helioshealth.com/birth_control/effectiveness_chart.html

Discusses all different forms from the main page..

 

[meegannie]

It should be noted that while I say these things, I'm a virgin, engaged to be married, and absolutely TERRIFIED of using the pill because of side effects. I mean VERY VERY VERY scared. I have no intention of ever using it. Also, I would never use mifepristone because I believe life begins at conception, AND I don't think it should be an OTC drug and that regulations for its administration should be revised and physicians should play an active roll after mifepristone has been prescribed because many of the complications mimic acceptable effects of the drug.

 

[pax]

Well, Zooropa, where's your stats on the amazing effectiveness of the condom as compared to the Pill? We're waaaaaaaaitiiiiiinnnnng...

 

[nbcrusader]

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

Now I am confused. Is this the Republican position? The Religious Right position? The Christian position? The Catholic position? The missionary position?

 

[pax]

Meegannie: while I'm not disputing that sometimes some pills can have adverse effects, I'm not sure why you're *quite* so scared. The first time I tried the Pill, I was on Triphasil, which is (shockingly enough) a triphasic pill regimen (meaning you take a few different kinds of pills with different kinds and amounts of hormones at different times during the month). BIG mistake: I gained weight, became severely depressed, couldn't concentrate on anything, cried for hours at a time...okay, it was not a fun time in my life.

So I went back to my doctor and explained everything that was happening. They had me go off the Pill entirely for two months to "clean house," so to speak. Then they started me on Alesse (also known as Aviane, the generic), which is a low-dose pill (so it doesn't freak out your body as much). The result? I've been on this pill now for almost three years (with a few breaks when I wasn't sexually active). It helped clear up my skin, lightened my periods, and (best of all!) helped to set my mind at ease about pregnancy.

Here's what WebMD has to say about the Pill, incidentally--the most common side effects ain't nothing to worry about:

http://my.webmd.com/content/healthwise/84/20800.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}

 

[meegannie]

Well, the money is one BIG issue, especially since I won't have health care in a couple of months, but I also have a massive fear of gaining ANY weight. I'm just afraid it would screw up my metabolism forever.

 

[pax]

Many women's health clinics offer oral contraceptives for free or on a sliding scale (basically, you pay what you can afford--Planned Parenthood works that way, for example). And with a low-dose pill, you're much less likely to experience significant metabolic changes.