So what do you think? Double Standard or just more conservative whining? (PT)

[JaseSF]

If the news media worked as it should, there would be no sides being taken. News should report  and focus on one thing and one thing only - the proven facts of what happened and leave it up to people to decide themselves (y'know think for themselves). That may not be as exciting as all the political hodge-podge b.s. on both sides (left and right) but it's the way it should be.

Not sure I agree with government funding birth control but I certainly think they should be encouraging it.

[lester1/2jr]

indiana- right but it's quite obviously better for a woman to not get pregnant than to have an abortion.

[ulthar]

it's quite obviously better for a woman to not get pregnant than to have an abortion.

Right.  I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

And, you know, there's one sure-fire way to make sure no pregnancy and it does not cost anyone else a single thin cent:

Don't have sex unless you want to make a baby...or, at least will accept it if you DO make a baby.  If you can afford birth control (really, how expensive is it, anyway?), the game is changed a bit, I guess.

But you cannot afford your own birth control, how can you afford your own abortion or to have and raise a child?

What drives the mindset that it's okay to force, under threat of JAIL, other people to pay for your own lifestyle choices, whether it's birth control OR abortion (or any other of a number of things this discussion COULD be about)?

[lester1/2jr]

right but that's not what happens. 

in reality people do have sex. wether they are teenagers or married people who have 9 kids and don't want anymore.

I think in some peoples minds the catholic churches views on contraception are THEIR, the churches, lifestyle choice. and shouldn't be forced on them. the less said about the rythm method the better.

[JaseSF]

Abstinence should definitely be encouraged. Far too many are having sex foolishly far too young just to be "in with the crowd", etc.. Guys should also be taking responsibility if they're going to be sexually active...they should certainly protect themselves with a condom and why not encourage more guys to have vasectomies if they don't want children? Too many people rush into foolish decisions thinking not with their heads but with other body parts...

[Allhallowsday]

it's quite obviously better for a woman to not get pregnant than to have an abortion.

Right.  I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

And, you know, there's one sure-fire way to make sure no pregnancy and it does not cost anyone else a single thin cent:

Don't have sex unless you want to make a baby...or, at least will accept it if you DO make a baby.  If you can afford birth control (really, how expensive is it, anyway?), the game is changed a bit, I guess.

But you cannot afford your own birth control, how can you afford your own abortion or to have and raise a child?

What drives the mindset that it's okay to force, under threat of JAIL, other people to pay for your own lifestyle choices, whether it's birth control OR abortion (or any other of a number of things this discussion COULD be about)?

Here we go again.  You're talking about thought processes and informed judgements.   It's not about what's moral or right or sensible.  It's about human nature.  And teenagers.  And foolish dangerous choices.  Fewer unwanted babies is better, as well as exposure to disease. 
I'll tell you what's cheap: condoms for boys or "men".  People will have sex, like the birds.  Your "threat of jail" thing is drama, and you know it.  Such drama would likely be welcomed by either side of a political debate. 

[lester1/2jr]

I'm reading an article on abortion now. Interesting that about 40 percent listed the reason as they already had children. money seems to be a big issue too.

[Raffine]

This reminds me; I've been meaning to watch TOMORROW'S CHILDREN, a 1930 eugenics movie featuring FREAKS' Schlitzie as a soon-to-be-castrated moron.

[ulthar]

Here we go again.  You're talking about thought processes and informed judgements.   It's not about what's moral or right or sensible.  It's about human nature.  And teenagers.  And foolish dangerous choices.  Fewer unwanted babies is better, as well as exposure to disease.

Wow.  You know what I think?  You set a low standard for people to strive to achieve, and that's the level they will achieve.

Everyone makes mistakes in life. That why, for example, our culture has evolved beyond things like teenage pregnancy (or unmarried pregnancy in general) are no longer crimes.  But that is NOT the same thing as wholesale acceptance dangerous, or irresponsible, behaviors that has life-altering negative consequences.

 
I'll tell you what's cheap: condoms for boys or "men". 

Yes, exactly.  This is what makes this whole "I can't afford birth control and someone else should pay for it" bs exactly that.

I love how both irresponsible behavior and the REQUIREMENT that others pay for it (financially and socially) gets defended as sensible.

Your "threat of jail" thing is drama, and you know it.  Such drama would likely be welcomed by either side of a political debate. 

Tax evasion is a crime, and can be punished by imprisonment, I think up to 5 years (which makes it a felony).

I'll give you a hypothetical, and for the purposes of this thread on media bias, think about how "the media" would report this case:

Suppose I refused to pay my taxes on the grounds of (a) I don't believe in publicly funded birth control and (b) I don't believe in publicly funded abortion (Planned Parenthood receives grants from the Federal Government to perform both of these "services" for the underprivileged) on the basis of religious grounds.

Would I be convicted of tax evasion and face the possibility of jail time, or would I be praised for exercising my 1st Amendment Right to PRACTICE the religion of my choice?  If my story were picked up by the AP or Reuters, what would be said? What phrases would be used?

You see, I think part of Indy's point in the OP is that MY RIGHT to practice MY RELIGION is only guaranteed so long as YOU approve, but that only goes one way.  I don't get any choice in the matter for others.  (rhetorical "you" in use here).  So long as my religion passes some sort of societal muster, I'm good to go.  But, if that crosses some invisible line....

Um, like saying I don't want to pay for the murder of unborn children...

Well, that just gets me branded a Kook or an extremist, or a right wing nutjob or fundamentalist, or "Christian Right."  How DARE I try to put my spiritual beliefs into practice by way of passive, non-violent protest of a behavior that I think defies humanity.

But yeah, it's just "drama" ....

[Allhallowsday]

...But yeah, it's just "drama" ....

That's right. 

[Mofo Rising]

As we all know, the only women who need birth control are "sluts," and if they're sluts they should have the decency to let us all see their sexual activity online! (Rush's words.)

With all due respect, these discussions are not about women 'needing birth control.'

...

But if we are honestly looking at the problem/issue at it's most core elements, the point he (maybe inadvertently) made is still the key, central point in the issue.  I'm not defending his calling a woman a slut; I'm saying the fact that he called her a slut, and the outcry it has created, has completely sidetracked the discussion we SHOULD be having about her: her lifestyle choices, the consequences of those choices and the costs (financial, societal and spiritual) to the rest of us.

...

And yes, there *IS* a double standard in the media.  We are NOT having this discussion, are we?  No, the 'story' is what Rush said.  If anyone brings up a real issue and asks the real hard questions, they are lambasted, ridiculed, berated or enormous efforts are made to discredit them.

No problem, my friend, I value your opinion.

However, the reason we are not having the discussion you brought up can be pretty fairly aimed at Rush Limbaugh. Instead of going for a reasoned discussion on the matter, like you have, he immediately jumped to a personal attack on the woman who disagreed with him. He did so by resorting to misogynistic bile, which a large portion of the public do not like. In fact, it makes them so angry that they will resort to boycotts of advertisers.

This brouhaha is now two issues. The first was the issue of tax-supported birth control, which you are arguing against. The second is the use of hate-filled rhetoric as a means of political discourse and entertainment, and its use in an advertiser-driven medium.

I didn't say anything about my opinions on the first issue, but it probably wouldn't surprise you to say that I disagree with your beliefs on several fundamental levels. But that's a larger discussion, and I'm happy you're bringing them up. This is the discourse that should be happening.

However, the reason I chimed in on the topic is that I find Limbaugh's method of approaching it awful. I see no reason that misogyny should be acceptable in public discourse, and make no mistake, Limbaugh's words were misogynistic. The reason that people are angry about his words is not they are looking to distract from the issue of birth-control, it's that he resorted to woman-bashing at a particularly vicious level. (He was also not the only commentator to do so, just the most virulent.)

It's this second issue I find fascinating. Limbaugh has always been a loudmouth a***ole, that's his job and the reason he's been popular for so many years. Now he's stepped into a pile of s**t with his rhetoric, which made a lot of people angry. Now advertisers are abandoning him in droves, which will hit him and his radio show in the only way people really care about, in the pocketbook.

Probably, he'll survive, he is Rush Limbaugh. I am willing to bet there are many people on both sides of left/right divide who would be happy to see him go, but this probably won't be the thing that kills him. That's capitalism for you.

What I would like to see from this debacle is the removal of hateful rhetoric about political matters from the national discourse. I may disagree with your point of view, but at least you approach it at an intelligent level. That's more than I can say for the sewage-level manner Limbaugh approaches things from. Get rid of it, it helps nobody.

[lester1/2jr]

I think to this woman, birth control pills are something she gets from her doctor so why isn't it covered like anything else? It's a normal medical thing. It's subjective to some people but so are alot of things. My anti-depressants are covered by insurance, i suppose someone could raise a stink about that if they really wanted.

[Frank81]

Actually, I didn't even think about this side of the story at first. I don't know why, either; normally I'm fairly aware of this sort of thing.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

Also, http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/08/should-nuns-take-the-pill-to-prevent-cancer/

Why, do  Nuns  have a  higher  incidence of cancer and why  Nuns, used  in that article and not say, oh, Muslim or women of other  faiths. Sounds  like another  thinly  vieled  attack on Christians and  Catholics.

[Frank81]

I think to this woman, birth control pills are something she gets from her doctor so why isn't it covered like anything else? It's a normal medical thing. It's subjective to some people but so are alot of things. My anti-depressants are covered by insurance, i suppose someone could raise a stink about that if they really wanted.

I happen  to be a  Republican who thinks  abortion  and the pill should not only be available, but, encouraged  for some people.    But, The  issue  here  is one  about double-standrad in speech  regarding  issues of the day. It's  like when I was passing the Occupy  Wall Street people  every day  at lunch from work, extremely  vile signs and rhetoric  that I saw  and heard at Zuccotti  Park, not to mention that  these  mostly  'white' kids  from wealthy  families  from Long Island and out of state  know  zip  of the reality  of growing up  poor and and immigrant. I grew up  as both and find it highly offensive and of the one standard the majority of media  has in regards  to most issues and it  can be classified as  Left and further  Left. You only saw the positive on Occupy, while the  'Tea Party' folks, a rally  I had attended, were presented as 'white, racists' at best.

[alandhopewell]

I think to this woman, birth control pills are something she gets from her doctor so why isn't it covered like anything else? It's a normal medical thing. It's subjective to some people but so are alot of things. My anti-depressants are covered by insurance, i suppose someone could raise a stink about that if they really wanted.

I happen  to be a  Republican who thinks  abortion  and the pill should not only be available, but, encouraged  for some people.   

    As I understand, Frank, you support abortion in cases of rape or incest. The thing is, isn't that levying the heaviest punishment upon the most innocent?

     I'm not bustin' your chops, Cap'n....but think about it.
But, The  issue  here  is one  about double-standrad in speech  regarding  issues of the day. It's  like when I was passing the Occupy  Wall Street people  every day  at lunch from work, extremely  vile signs and rhetoric  that I saw  and heard at Zuccotti  Park, not to mention that  these  mostly  'white' kids  from wealthy  families  from Long Island and out of state  know  zip  of the reality  of growing up  poor and and immigrant. I grew up  as both and find it highly offensive and of the one standard the majority of media  has in regards  to most issues and it  can be classified as  Left and further  Left. You only saw the positive on Occupy, while the  'Tea Party' folks, a rally  I had attended, were presented as 'white, racists' at best.