Is There a "War On Women" in the U.S.A.?

[Svobodu]

Women still can get abortions.

I am required to take my shoes off at the airport, have my rights been taken away? Flying is optional. Abortions are optional.

Fine, so if we're ok with that and making women pay out of pocket for birth control, then surely you have no problems with doing the same with men's erectile dysfunction medications like viagra or cialis

By the same token since you think trans-vaginal ultrasounds for women who need or want an abortion are just fine, then surely men who want their ED medication have to pass rectal exams and a cardiac stress test as well (thank you VA State Sen. Janet Howell).

Fair's fair right?

Correct, gov't should not be forcing insurance companies to cover ED pills. If they want to cover on their own accord, that is fine. If an insurance company wants to require its customer to take those tests before operations, that is fine. In this case, the customer has the power to reject and go to a different insurance company.

My point was that women's right to abortion was still valid. There is no right for free birth control.

[Genivaria]

Yes there is.

[Ethel mermania]

Trying to distract from deficit, that is all.

While there have been very few laws passed recently that are kinda messed up when it comes to doctors providing honest information regarding health benefits of abortions, there hasn't been any reduction in women's rights.

Really? Mandating trans-vaginal ultrasounds for women seeking an abortion isn't an infringement on their rights?

Seems kinda kinky to me. I support. But no its not an infringement on their rights. Its pretty damm stupid, but not an infringement.

[Svobodu]

Women still can get abortions.

I am required to take my shoes off at the airport, have my rights been taken away? Flying is optional. Abortions are optional.

Not if their doctor lies to them about how far along they are in Arizona, or declines to tell them about birth defects he or she knows about until it's too late -- and then can't be sued for keeping the information from them.

If a guy had cancer of the testicle, and their doctor made a conscious decision NOT to reveal this to them until it had spread, and then could not be sued for doing that, would you have a problem with it?

This is what I was referencing when I said "few" laws have been passed that are wrong, this is it. So I agree with you.

[Svobodu]

Women still can get abortions.

I am required to take my shoes off at the airport, have my rights been taken away? Flying is optional. Abortions are optional.

There's alternatives to flying if you want to get somewhere. There aren't any viable alternatives to abortions if you want to terminate a pregnancy.

The other option would be to give birth. If they wanted an abortion that badly, they can take a test if it is required. Ideally, it would be required by the insurance company and not the government.

[Laerod]

There's alternatives to flying if you want to get somewhere. There aren't any viable alternatives to abortions if you want to terminate a pregnancy.

The other option would be to give birth. If they wanted an abortion that badly, they can take a test if it is required. Ideally, it would be required by the insurance company and not the government.

Wrong. Reread what I wrote.

[Yootwopia]

There's alternatives to flying if you want to get somewhere. There aren't any viable alternatives to abortions if you want to terminate a pregnancy.

The other option would be to give birth.

That doesn't remotely fit your analogy.

What you've basically said is that you can fly to Honolulu, or maybe get in a boat. Or you can walk to Bruges. Different outcomes.

[Northern Dominus]

Fine, so if we're ok with that and making women pay out of pocket for birth control, then surely you have no problems with doing the same with men's erectile dysfunction medications like viagra or cialis

By the same token since you think trans-vaginal ultrasounds for women who need or want an abortion are just fine, then surely men who want their ED medication have to pass rectal exams and a cardiac stress test as well (thank you VA State Sen. Janet Howell).

Fair's fair right?

Correct, gov't should not be forcing insurance companies to cover ED pills. If they want to cover on their own accord, that is fine. If an insurance company wants to require its customer to take those tests before operations, that is fine. In this case, the customer has the power to reject and go to a different insurance company.

My point was that women's right to abortion was still valid. There is no right for free birth control.

You're misssing the point. It's an unessicary invasion of privacy and frankly bullying by state legislatures. By any other name this could be construed as reproductive abuse.
Hardly a defensable position but keep tigging, you never know.

[Svobodu]

There's alternatives to flying if you want to get somewhere. There aren't any viable alternatives to abortions if you want to terminate a pregnancy.

The other option would be to give birth. If they wanted an abortion that badly, they can take a test if it is required. Ideally, it would be required by the insurance company and not the government.

If your insurance company required that test, you have the option of switching to another company. UNFORTUNATELY, the governmented has said it is required that you take a test, so you have no power in choosing a new company.

Regardless, if a company required this of their customers, it would not be abuse. It is simply their requirement for abortions to be covered and if you want to remain a customer, you have to follow it. As long as they aren't sexually abusing it is still legal.

[Yootwopia]

The other option would be to give birth. If they wanted an abortion that badly, they can take a test if it is required. Ideally, it would be required by the insurance company and not the government.

If your insurance company required that test, you have the option of switching to another company. UNFORTUNATELY, the governmented has said it is required that you take a test, so you have no power in choosing a new company.

Regardless, if a company required this of their customers, it would not be abuse. It is simply their requirement for abortions to be covered and if you want to remain a customer, you have to follow it. As long as they aren't sexually abusing it is still legal.

What are you even trying to say?

[Wikkiwallana]

Really? Mandating trans-vaginal ultrasounds for women seeking an abortion isn't an infringement on their rights?

Women still can get abortions.

I am required to take my shoes off at the airport, have my rights been taken away? Flying is optional. Abortions are optional.

Having to take off your shoes is not the same as having an invasive probe stuck in your body. When you have to get a cavity check to get on an airplane, then you can compare the two.

[Northern Dominus]

The other option would be to give birth. If they wanted an abortion that badly, they can take a test if it is required. Ideally, it would be required by the insurance company and not the government.

If your insurance company required that test, you have the option of switching to another company. UNFORTUNATELY, the governmented has said it is required that you take a test, so you have no power in choosing a new company.

Regardless, if a company required this of their customers, it would not be abuse. It is simply their requirement for abortions to be covered and if you want to remain a customer, you have to follow it. As long as they aren't sexually abusing it is still legal.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003779.htm
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-21-2012/punanny-state---virginia-s-transvaginal-ultrasound-bill

Educate yourself then try and justify the practice. By any humane standard this is a violation, especially when raped women are concerned. Pay close attention to the "having something shoved inside a woman's genitals against their will". What exactly does that sound like?

[Deus Malum]

Quick poll update:

Of the 142 men that responded to the gender-split poll, 67 (~47.2%) responded that they believe there is a war on women in the US, 56 (~39.4%)reported they do not believe there is a war on women in the US, and 19 (~13.4%) responded that they are unsure/do not know.

Of the 24 women who responded to the poll, 14 (~58.3%) responded that they believe there is a war on women in the US, 5 (20.8%) reported they do not believe there is a war on women in the US, and 5 (20.8%) responded that they are unsure/do not know.

Out of the total number (166) of respondents, 48% believe there is a war on women in the US, 37% do not believe there is a war on women in the US, and 14% are unsure.

The interesting thing about this being that if we lump the "do not know" votes in with the "no" votes, we get a split of roughly 48%/51%, contrasted by the 46%/54% split in this thread. Which, as noted previously suggests strongly that the poll in this thread suffers negatively for the lack of a "do not know" option in reflecting the views of the general NSG population.

[Northern Dominus]

Quick poll update:

Of the 142 men that responded to the gender-split poll, 67 (~47.2%) responded that they believe there is a war on women in the US, 56 (~39.4%)reported they do not believe there is a war on women in the US, and 19 (~13.4%) responded that they are unsure/do not know.

Of the 24 women who responded to the poll, 14 (~58.3%) responded that they believe there is a war on women in the US, 5 (20.8%) reported they do not believe there is a war on women in the US, and 5 (20.8%) responded that they are unsure/do not know.

Out of the total number (166) of respondents, 48% believe there is a war on women in the US, 37% do not believe there is a war on women in the US, and 14% are unsure.

The interesting thing about this being that if we lump the "do not know" votes in with the "no" votes, we get a split of roughly 48%/51%, contrasted by the 46%/54% split in this thread. Which, as noted previously suggests strongly that the poll in this thread suffers negatively for the lack of a "do not know" option in reflecting the views of the general NSG population.

Either that or a disturbing number of NSG members have been raised by inconsiderate, un-compassionate and uneducated fools who glaze over sexism and non-thought with "GOD" or other by-words to cover their own personal developmental shortcomings.

Of course this entire argument has been clouded, as usual, by nitpicking and semantics. You can throw arguments at those no's all day and facts and stats just won't matter, or will be met with more jingoism.

[Katganistan]

Quick poll update:

Of the 142 men that responded to the gender-split poll, 67 (~47.2%) responded that they believe there is a war on women in the US, 56 (~39.4%)reported they do not believe there is a war on women in the US, and 19 (~13.4%) responded that they are unsure/do not know.

Of the 24 women who responded to the poll, 14 (~58.3%) responded that they believe there is a war on women in the US, 5 (20.8%) reported they do not believe there is a war on women in the US, and 5 (20.8%) responded that they are unsure/do not know.

Out of the total number (166) of respondents, 48% believe there is a war on women in the US, 37% do not believe there is a war on women in the US, and 14% are unsure.

The interesting thing about this being that if we lump the "do not know" votes in with the "no" votes, we get a split of roughly 48%/51%, contrasted by the 46%/54% split in this thread. Which, as noted previously suggests strongly that the poll in this thread suffers negatively for the lack of a "do not know" option in reflecting the views of the general NSG population.

Which would be why I added them -- and also, I thought it was fairer as well. There are people who might be convinced one way or the other... even if this IS NSG.

[Northern Dominus]

Which would be why I added them -- and also, I thought it was fairer as well. There are people who might be convinced one way or the other... even if this IS NSG.

To use an old-timey exclamation, Balderdash. This is the internet, a place where you have no face and no means of accountability or any fear of having the crap kicked out of you for being a troll, so no middle ground required!

[New England and The Maritimes]

If there isn't a "war on women" going on, then why exactly have people like Robert Bork been riding the coattails of the GOP toward real power for the first time in 3 decades? Why have abortion restrictions across the country been passed into laws at levels that dwarf every other period in American history just in the past two years? Why are we in real danger of becoming a country where women have to hide in back alleys and die of infections just to get a simple medical procedure?

If womens' rights are not under attack, then answer me this; Why are womens' rights under attack?

[Revolutopia]

Kat, I don't know if this should go into technical, but my poll options are still only the two of yes or no.

[Northern Dominus]

If there isn't a "war on women" going on, then why exactly have people like Robert Bork been riding the coattails of the GOP toward real power for the first time in 3 decades? Why have abortion restrictions across the country been passed into laws at levels that dwarf every other period in American history just in the past two years? Why are we in real danger of becoming a country where women have to hide in back alleys and die of infections just to get a simple medical procedure?

If womens' rights are not under attack, then answer me this; Why are womens' rights under attack?

Because, errrr.....SEMANTICS! NITPICKING! IGNORING SOURCES! CITING BAD COUNTER-SOURCES! GENERAL TROLLING!!!...

Just preparing you for what's to come

[Katganistan]

Which would be why I added them -- and also, I thought it was fairer as well. There are people who might be convinced one way or the other... even if this IS NSG.

To use an old-timey exclamation, Balderdash. This is the internet, a place where you have no face and no means of accountability or any fear of having the crap kicked out of you for being a troll, so no middle ground required!

Whatevs.

[Alaje]

There is no war against women, if anything there is one against men.

[Katganistan]

There's actually a separate thread with the six poll options, here.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Kat, I don't know if this should go into technical, but my poll options are still only the two of yes or no.

They hack your webcam and analyze the data. That's how they figure out which gender you are and what you believe. It's also used for... other things. Pay the statistics no mind.

[Katganistan]

There is no war against women, if anything there is one against men.

I like cheese.

[Revolutopia]

There's actually a separate thread with the six poll options, here.

Doh

Ah, I knew there was a multioption poll, only when I logged in to vote in it I couldn't find it again and thought it was here.