Conquer Club

Ok, first read this article (yes, I know it's HuffPo, but read it damn it!):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-b-keegan/99-of-women-have-used-con_b_1281808.html

Now...I consider HuffPo to be about as frequently dishonest as Fox News. However, they do have some good articles from time to time. I would like to hear from the conservatives in the fora how this article is misleading, dishonest or lacking in necessary details. This is NOT an attack (if it were, I would just post the link and leave it), but rather a request for information because I really don't want to believe some of the things noted in this article.

So, conservatives, your challenge is to find the things that you believe are wrong in the article and explain for me why they're wrong.

Thanks!

Why does one have to identify as conservative to tell you what they think is wrong in that article? Is there any reason a liberal (or non conservative) could not tell you what is wrong in the article?

ViperOverLord wrote:Why does one have to identify as conservative to tell you what they think is wrong in that article? Is there any reason a liberal (or non conservative) could not tell you what is wrong in the article?

They dont and no, the probability though is that few non conservatives would find fault.
You really need to stop being so paranoid

comic boy wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Why does one have to identify as conservative to tell you what they think is wrong in that article? Is there any reason a liberal (or non conservative) could not tell you what is wrong in the article?

They dont and no, the probability though is that few non conservatives would find fault.
You really need to stop being so paranoid

Maybe you should actually read the article (and/or the OP).

ViperOverLord wrote:

comic boy wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Why does one have to identify as conservative to tell you what they think is wrong in that article? Is there any reason a liberal (or non conservative) could not tell you what is wrong in the article?

They dont and no, the probability though is that few non conservatives would find fault.
You really need to stop being so paranoid

Maybe you should actually read the article (and/or the OP).

I have , are you going to respond to the questions posed in the OP or just keep waffling ?

comic boy wrote:
I have , are you going to respond to the questions posed in the OP or just keep waffling ?

Waffling? I legitimately regard the OP when I ask why it has to be a conservative that finds fault with the article.

Woodruff wrote:Ok, first read this article (yes, I know it's HuffPo, but read it damn it!):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-b-keegan/99-of-women-have-used-con_b_1281808.html

Now...I consider HuffPo to be about as frequently dishonest as Fox News. However, they do have some good articles from time to time. I would like to hear from the conservatives in the fora how this article is misleading, dishonest or lacking in necessary details. This is NOT an attack (if it were, I would just post the link and leave it), but rather a request for information because I really don't want to believe some of the things noted in this article.

So, conservatives, your challenge is to find the things that you believe are wrong in the article and explain for me why they're wrong.

Thanks!

I am not getting into the basic question, since I don't identify as conservative.

That said, I, too, questioned that "99% of women in the US using birth control" figure. I tried "googling" and found a lot of quotes in the high 90 percentages, but nothing with decent citations. It seems to be a widely reported figure, but where they get it, I cannot tell.

However, ALL the reports include every form of birth control, not just the pill. And, if someone used, say, a condom even once, then they would fit into the 99% figure.

What I HAVE heard is that over 90% of Roman Catholic women in the US have used the burth control pill at one point or another, this based on various polls (gallup, etc). (though that seemed a bit high to me as well.. I was thinking more like 80%).

Also, women use birth control for many reasons, many that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancies. Women with irregular or harsh "cycles" may use it to jsut feel better OR because they want to become pregnant and their doctor feels they need to "stabilize" a bit. That in addition to women who want to have more children, but who's doctors feel it best they wait a bit. (not to mention those who's doctors advise them that having another child would be life-threatening).

I'm going to attempt to address the 99% portion of the article without addressing the ridiculous and wild accusations made throughout the rest of the article (for those that don't care to read a pimpdavesque editorial, think the conservatives and their obsession with the president's birthplace and association with Robert Ayers).

Let's talk about the data first.

I clicked the link provided addressing the 99% issue.

Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.[2]

So it's not 99% of women, it's 99% of women who have ever had sexual intercourse.

And it's not 99% of women, it's 99% of women between the ages of 15 and 44.

Now let's talk about the basis of the argument. The Republicans are not necessarily concerned with the use of contraceptives (although there is an element of that). They are more concerned with the payment by the government for the use of contraceptives of others. The conservative argument can go one of two ways: (1) We don't want to subsidize anything (the TGD, BBS argument) or (2) We don't want to subsidize poor behavior or behavior many people don't agree with (the social conservative argument). Number (1) seems self-explanatory. Number (2) is, for conservatives, akin to saying "we're going to subsidize Big Mac consumption."

Finally, I agree with VOL - What was the point Woodruff? Why does a conservative need to be the one to point out the problems with the article? We hear a lot of talk on this forum about being nonpartisan and about how the conservatives on this forum use ridiculous statistics. How is this any different? This is weird coming from you Woodruff, unless I'm mistaking the intent.

I hate how religious fanatics are grouped in with Conservatives.

That said... the Gov't should NOT have the right to force ANY employer (be that employer a religious one or a secular one) to provide a benefit that said employer does not want to provide.

The Liberals have already won this one... because they changed the conversation.

It's NOT about whether or not women should have access to contraception. It's about forcing a private company to offer benefits.

So can the Gov't force private employers to provide any benefit they want.
*Paid Sick Leave
*Minimum 2 weeks paid vacation
*Healthcare with specific items ear-marked as free
*Healthcare for adult children of employees

What's next?
*Free nutritional fat-free lunch?
*Free Health club membership?
*How about free tickets to the Red Sox?
*Free college tuition... so employees can get better trained then go leave for another company?
*Free Massages? Helps with ciruclation and ergonomics you know!

OK... now I've read the article.

It bored me.

All I got from it was that this guy thinks the extreme wing of the Republican Party is driving the agenda. He's actually correct. Of course the same is happening on the Democratic side... which si why we can't get anything done.

jimboston wrote:OK... now I've read the article.

It bored me.

All I got from it was that this guy thinks the extreme wing of the Republican Party is driving the agenda. He's actually correct. Of course the same is happening on the Democratic side?.

Not the place for this discussion (if you wish to get into it, should be another thread), but do you seriously believe the Democrats are being run by extremists? Seems to me you can hardly distinguish them from the Republicans any more.

jimboston wrote:It's NOT about whether or not women should have access to contraception. It's about forcing a private company to offer benefits.

And?

Governments have made regulations for companies regarding how they treat their employers for years. And how is that a bad thing? Without those regulations, we'd still have kids dying in coal mines or employees being subjected to hazardous chemicals or being paid slave wages.

So yes, the government forces the employers to treat their employees with some basic level of decency. What that level is is debatable, but simply stating that government shouldn't force private companies to "offer benefits" is disingenious and an entirely irrational.

natty dread wrote:

jimboston wrote:It's NOT about whether or not women should have access to contraception. It's about forcing a private company to offer benefits.

And?

Governments have made regulations for companies regarding how they treat their employers for years. And how is that a bad thing? Without those regulations, we'd still have kids dying in coal mines or employees being subjected to hazardous chemicals or being paid slave wages.

So yes, the government forces the employers to treat their employees with some basic level of decency. What that level is is debatable, but simply stating that government shouldn't force private companies to "offer benefits" is disingenious and an entirely irrational.

I think he means offering benefits for contraceptives, which, just maybe, a little bit, is different than preventing kids from dying in coal mines or being paid slave wages (which, by the way, is $0).

So, your use of the words "disingenuous" (which you spelled wrong) and "irrational" are kind of ironic, don't you think?

Maybe you want to argue about how a private company (or taxpayers) paying for others to use contraceptives is "some basic level of decency." I'd love to see that.

thegreekdog wrote:I think he means offering benefits for contraceptives, which, just maybe, a little bit, is different than preventing kids from dying in coal mines or being paid slave wages

No, he plain asserted that forcing private companies to offer benefits is wrong.

Contraceptives are a benefit. Free insurance, covering contraceptives, is another benefit. Not having to be exposed to harmful chemicals is a benefit. Workplace safety is a benefit.

You can argue over which benefits are reasonable for the government to mandate as mandatory for all employers, but simply asserting that the government shouldn't force any benefits is plain idiotic.

thegreekdog wrote:So, your use of the words "disingenuous" (which you spelled wrong)

Really, TGD? Is that the best you've got? Calling out the spelling of someone who doesn't speak english as their first language?

I used to think you were one of the sensible posters, but seems like these days you're just one of the mindless republidrones who blindly attacks anyone who is perceived as non-conservative by the right-wing hivemind.

thegreekdog wrote:

natty dread wrote:

jimboston wrote:It's NOT about whether or not women should have access to contraception. It's about forcing a private company to offer benefits.

And?

Governments have made regulations for companies regarding how they treat their employers for years. And how is that a bad thing? Without those regulations, we'd still have kids dying in coal mines or employees being subjected to hazardous chemicals or being paid slave wages.

So yes, the government forces the employers to treat their employees with some basic level of decency. What that level is is debatable, but simply stating that government shouldn't force private companies to "offer benefits" is disingenious and an entirely irrational.

I think he means offering benefits for contraceptives, which, just maybe, a little bit, is different than preventing kids from dying in coal mines or being paid slave wages (which, by the way, is $0).

So, your use of the words "disingenuous" (which you spelled wrong) and "irrational" are kind of ironic, don't you think?

Maybe you want to argue about how a private company (or taxpayers) paying for others to use contraceptives is "some basic level of decency." I'd love to see that.

IS it really different or is it just a different level of severity.. and something that mostly concerns just women?
But.. don't want to drive this thread off. Woodruff asked a good question. This point has been brought up in many other threads. You have not really answered why this medical issue is apart from others.

natty dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I think he means offering benefits for contraceptives, which, just maybe, a little bit, is different than preventing kids from dying in coal mines or being paid slave wages

No, he plain asserted that forcing private companies to offer benefits is wrong.

Contraceptives are a benefit. Free insurance, covering contraceptives, is another benefit. Not having to be exposed to harmful chemicals is a benefit. Workplace safety is a benefit.

You can argue over which benefits are reasonable for the government to mandate as mandatory for all employers, but simply asserting that the government shouldn't force any benefits is plain idiotic.

thegreekdog wrote:So, your use of the words "disingenuous" (which you spelled wrong)

Really, TGD? Is that the best you've got? Calling out the spelling of someone who doesn't speak english as their first language?

I used to think you were one of the sensible posters, but seems like these days you're just one of the mindless republidrones who blindly attacks anyone who is perceived as non-conservative by the right-wing hivemind.

I actually went back and forth as to whether to point out your misspelling specifically because I knew you would use that as the basis of any counterarguments.

Your argument is disingenuous. Unless you want to come back with a genuine argument as to why contraceptives should be paid for by private interests or by the government, I look forward to your continued whining about how I'm a mindless drone who makes fun of your spelling.

And stop dividing up my posts. It's annoying.

thegreekdog wrote:I actually went back and forth as to whether to point out your misspelling specifically because I knew you would use that as the basis of any counterarguments.

Sure, if you ignore and/or misrepresent any other content of my posts, then I guess you could say this was the "basis of my argument". Similarly, I could say the basis of your argument was my misspelling.

thegreekdog wrote:Your argument is disingenuous. Unless you want to come back with a genuine argument as to why contraceptives should be paid for by private interests or by the government,

If my argument is so "disingenuous", why aren't you able to counter it other than by asserting that it is wrong?

I look forward to your continued whining about how I'm a mindless drone

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but if the shoe fits...

who makes fun of your spelling.

You did make fun of my spelling. I didn't force you to do it. The government didn't force you to do it. It was your own decision, so either own up to it or quit complaining.

thegreekdog wrote:And stop dividing up my posts. It's annoying.

Stop quoting everything in one piece. It's annoying.

Okay, natty, I'll be the bigger Nord:

I don't think it's unreasonable for private companies and individuals to argue they should not have to provide for insurance to cover contraceptives. I don't think providing insurance coverage for contraceptives is akin to any of the examples you provided.

And... go...

thegreekdog wrote:I don't think it's unreasonable for private companies and individuals to argue they should not have to provide for insurance to cover contraceptives.

If it's expected of the companies to provide insurance that covers overall healthcare, then there's no reason why that insurance shouldn't cover contraceptives as well.

If you guys had universal healthcare, then this thing wouldn't even be an issue.

natty dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I don't think it's unreasonable for private companies and individuals to argue they should not have to provide for insurance to cover contraceptives.

If it's expected of the companies to provide insurance that covers overall healthcare, then there's no reason why that insurance shouldn't cover contraceptives as well.

If you guys had universal healthcare, then this thing wouldn't even be an issue.

There are plenty of reasons why companies would not want their health insurance to cover contraceptives:

(1) Money;
(2) Necessity vs. non-necessity;
(3) Religious reasons
(4) Personal reasons

If we had universal healthcare, this would be an even bigger issue.

thegreekdog wrote:There are plenty of reasons why companies would not want their health insurance to cover contraceptives:

(1) Money;
(2) Necessity vs. non-necessity;
(3) Religious reasons
(4) Personal reasons

There's plenty of "reasons" for companies to want to do lots of things.

1 - Does money justify everything? Is a company justified in eg. destroying the environment, ignoring safety of employees, moving production to 3rd world countries, as long as it gets them more money?
2 - Necessity is subjective. One could argue that lots of things aren't "necessities", yet in a civilized society, guaranteeing those things for workers is considered beneficial for all.
3 - Religious reasons can be used to justify anything. Religious freedom should never override more important freedoms and rights.
4 - Personal reasons can also be used to justify anything.

I fail to see how any of these are viable arguments.

thegreekdog wrote:If we had universal healthcare, this would be an even bigger issue.

I don't believe you.

thegreekdog wrote:

natty dread wrote:

jimboston wrote:It's NOT about whether or not women should have access to contraception. It's about forcing a private company to offer benefits.

And?

Governments have made regulations for companies regarding how they treat their employers for years. And how is that a bad thing? Without those regulations, we'd still have kids dying in coal mines or employees being subjected to hazardous chemicals or being paid slave wages.

So yes, the government forces the employers to treat their employees with some basic level of decency. What that level is is debatable, but simply stating that government shouldn't force private companies to "offer benefits" is disingenious and an entirely irrational.

I think he means offering benefits for contraceptives, which, just maybe, a little bit, is different than preventing kids from dying in coal mines or being paid slave wages (which, by the way, is $0).

Wanted toavoid this in this thread, but since you brought it up, WHY is it so different?

The primary reason is becuase birth control impacts just women. Whether women get it or not has a LOT to do with whether they can even work, whether they will be available for employment with men on an equal basis, etc, etc, etc.

This is why it was decided years ago that not providing birth control amounted to defacto discrimination. ALSO, deciding that this, alone is a "moral" issue and not a medical one ignores the fact that huge numbers of women need or use birth control for fully medical reasons. Its not an employer's business whether someone wants birth control to regulate their cycles, so they have steady levels of energy reasonable pain containment, etc, etc. OR if their doctor advised them not to get pregnant (either for a time or forever) OR if they simply don't want children right then. Allowing an employer to make this decision means it IS their business. It means that this medical decision, alone they get to decide.

thegreekdog wrote: Maybe you want to argue about how a private company (or taxpayers) paying for others to use contraceptives is "some basic level of decency." I'd love to see that.

Done that. You quickly claimed I either did not know of what I spoke or that it was irrelevant, etc. The basic point is that birth control medication is fully and appropriately part of a woman's health care for MANY reasons. Yet, though you are not a doctor, not even a woman, are not even fully aware of all these issues (as you have proven in your debates and the number of times I have shown you either misunderstood or misused terms, etc.) you think you (and note YOU are actually far more informed than many, many men, particularly US priests and Bishops) have the right to decide this? PLEASE note it is precisely because of this type of thinking that I was treated absolutely horridly at the absolute worst time in my life.. and why that standard continues today!!! (and no, don't make me repeat the details).

natty dread wrote:3 - Religious reasons can be used to justify anything. Religious freedom should never override more important freedoms and rights.

The right to contraceptives?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

natty dread wrote:3 - Religious reasons can be used to justify anything. Religious freedom should never override more important freedoms and rights.

The right to contraceptives?

How about the right to safety and health?

natty dread wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

natty dread wrote:3 - Religious reasons can be used to justify anything. Religious freedom should never override more important freedoms and rights.

The right to contraceptives?

How about the right to safety and health?

That's a very expansive right.

It's not like condoms are expensive. Usually, at least, people justify state intervention when enough of a certain good can't be provided by the market.