Chaldanya, on 06 March 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:
You're not going to answer the point that even if you are using the pill for birth control you may not be suited to the $9/mth generic pill? That would make it more expensive and directly impact those that can't afford the more expensive pill? Y'know this isn't just about one woman that you think should be ridiculed because she's simply not the RIGHT advocate.
Well, I thought that I did answer it, but I'll try it again. First, as a political matter, it is perfectly appropriate to use that one woman as an example if she chooses to testify. Second, she's not some shrinking violet or innocent yanked from the woodwork. She's on record as having said she investigated the policy before deciding to attend, and has been lobbying for it for awhile. She was president of the school's reproductive rights advocacy group, and wanted
this controversy from the moment (and even before) she enrolled. But on to the contraceptives.
I'll reiterate the quote from the article I linked above if my position is not clear, and yes, it is
about the money.
Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.
Spin it however you want, but that is the reality. I personally do not give two shits who has sex with whom, and I'm not some uptight prick who only had sex with one woman in my life and married her, etc. I've bought condoms myself, I've dated women who've bought their own birth control, and for a couple of long-time girfriends, I chipped in for the cost. But that was our
business and responsibility, not anyone else's. Maybe we just thought that way because we weren't spoiled little entitlement brats.
The mindset that I have the right to demand that others pay for what my girlfriend and I chose to do is honestly something alien to me. That opinion has nothing
to do with morality, but strikes me as akin to asking society to pick up my bar tab or movie ticket. We are talking recreational sex
. There is nothing grand or noble involved, no matter how much you may try to make it so. It's fucking for fun
, so why shouldn't
you pay whatever costs are ancillary to your chosen recreational activity? Cripe, don't you people have any fucking personal pride at all?
Now, if an insurance company wants to cover that, and an employer wants to buy that insurance, I could care less. They should be free to do that, or not
to do that, for whatever reasons matter to them. And if that employer's reason happens to be that they don't think fucking for free is good, then who are you to complain? You have no right to them subsidizing your fucking in the first place, so their reasons for denying it shouldn't matter.
Does that make my position clear?
I swear, the fucking problem with a good segment of humanity right now is that they have a terminal case of "I want it, and someone has to give it to me. Just because I want it."
Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 06 March 2012 - 03:42 PM.