Sunday, March 4, 2012

Ever Notice How Liberals Try To Change The Argument To Suit Themselves?

In regard to my post about the O'Reilly/Fluke flap, one reader responded as follows (my comments are inserted in blue italics):

"There are several problems with O'Reillys analysis - I'll focus on two. 1) Fluke's testimony wasn't focused on wanton sex or her own sex life. She shared a lengthy story of a friend with one of the medical conditions for which such drugs are prescribed."

[REPLY] That only represented a part of her testimony, not all of it. She did inject testimony in regard to contraception coverage in general, and her belief that somehow the taxpayer should pay for them to have sex. As for that specific student with a "medical condition" that requires a specific type of contraceptive, that is too bad - but in America, which is a REPUBLIC by law and not a Democracy, it is not up to government to force everyone to pay for one person. I am 100% certain there is a Planned Parenthood within taxi distance of Georgetown where she can get any kind of contraception at no cost.\

"I might add for some women pregnancy is medically contra-indicated and marital status plays no part in either medical diagnosis."

[REPLY] And just WHY should that put ME on the hook for her condition, or its costs? Why can't you liberals simply admit you have no use for personal responsibility - that you prefer to have others take care of you from cradle to grave?

"2) Pregnancy is a medical condition that must be covered by all insurance plans. Unless O'Reilly wants to exclude pregnancy from coverage, he's arguing he'd prefer to pay the higher costs associated with a pregnancy than pay the lower costs of preventative prescription drugs."

[REPLY] Wrong again. You are assuming that the only alternative to paying for pregnancy is to not pay for it. That is a bogus argument used by liberals to change the conversation. In fact, there are other options, such as not having unprotected sex unless you are willing to accept the consequences and support your own choices. Or, for the woman to buy her own contraceptives. Or, as MOST women do, have the MAN pay for them. No, sir, the choices are not as you would have us believe. O'Reilly and other conservatives don't mind that pregnancy is covered by insurance. But what we DO mind is paying for people to be promiscuous, and paying for their play, which is what the contraception thing is all about. It's not about pregnancy. We WELCOME new life. But we do not welcome paying people to engage in sex at the drop of a hat, without taking any responsibility for the consequences. I've said it many times - do not ask anyone else to abort - or support - your children. Sex is YOUR CHOICE. Do not ask me to pay for your choices.

>From an economic standpoint, that's nonsensical - when it comes to medicine, effective prevention is less costly. Effectiveness being the most important factor in prevention.

[REPLY] And I suppose you think contraception is the only form of prevention. Whatever happened to abstinence? And again, you are twisting the issue - it is not whether contraception will prevent pregnancy - it's about whether I should PAY for YOUR sex. And the answer is an emphatic "NO". Go ahead, have sex. Go ahead, use contraception. But YOU pay for it. Next thing you know you'll be asking taxpayers to pay for your hookers.

>O'Reilly's football analogy and your misunderstanding of how oral contraceptives work they're not taken like Viagra) make clear neither of you fully understand the reproductive systems of women

[REPLY] You have no idea as to my "understanding" of oral contraception. In fact, I never even mentioned that. Again, I know you are a liberal, but when trying to post here, at least make an attempt at honesty and leave the spin at home. I have probably forgotten more about oral contraception than you will ever know.

>or how ridiculous it is to think not "paying" for prevention means not "paying" for the possible consequences.

[REPLY] You liberals need to stop using bogus arguments of comparing oranges to apples. Let's see if you can understand a very simple concept, in simple English - CONSERVATIVES HAVE NO DESIRE TO PAY FOR YOUR CHOICES. If it is YOUR choice to have sex, you take responsibility for it - including the cost of contraception, and either the cost to abort or to support any baby that comes about. YOU PAY FOR YOUR CHOICES. It is not as if someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to sleep around. No, it is YOUR CHOICE. You make it, you pay for it. Or have you never heard the old adage, "If YOU want to dance then YOU need to pay the piper (or put the money in the jukebox)." Asking someone else to pay for your contraception is no different from asking a stranger to put money in the jukebox so YOU can dance.

>You'd both be better off simply admitting this isn't about cost for you, it's about the moral distinction still made between men and women engaging in a natural biological activity.

[REPLY] My, how arrogant of you to tell me what I think or believe. It must be nice to be God. Look, pal, it has nothing to do with a moral distinction, as much as you would like people to believe it is. It is about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY - something YOU obviously know nothing about. It's about me not wanting to pay for something that I don't even get to participate in. In short - if I am to pay for the sex, then I damned well better be the one getting the ecstacy from it. I could care less about your promiscuity - but I do care about not paying others to leech off the taxpayers, because I am one of those taxpayers. It's bad enough I am forced to pay to feed and house your illicit children even before I can feed my own family - the IRS takes it before I even get paid. Don't expect me to just sit back quietly while you try and tuck it up my butt by having me pay for your sex. Next you'll be asking me to pay for your vacation because it is good for your mental health. NO!!!!! Be a grown-up and take responsibility for yourself and your choices.

>If it weren't, we'd be arguing about whether women should have to "pay for" prostrate screenings/drugs or men should have to "pay for" mammograms. That's an inane argument because risk pooling is at the heart of affordable health insurance.

[REPLY] Again with the bogus argument. It has nothing to do with "risk pooling." It's about whether or not someone else should pay for YOUR fun, YOUR choices. Prostate screening and mammograns have nothing to do with your fun, your choices, so yes, they should be covered because cancer can happen to ANYONE and we have yet to figure out how to prevent it. But having sex is different - it is a choice you make, and the way to prevent it is to control yourself, and if you cannot, then have enough self-respect to pay for your own condoms.

As a final note to ALL liberals - I don't give a rat's butt what you do to yourselves, or what choices you make. I don't care if you choose to sleep around, or if you choose to have an abortion, or if you choose to rob a bank. In America, we have the freedom to make our own choices. But with freedom comes RESPONSIBILITY. YOU, not I, should pay for YOUR choices. And I, not you, should pay for mine.

Asking me to buy your contraceptives is like asking a man of the cloth to buy your ski-mask and gun so you can hold up a liquor store with greater safety. And when he declines, you accuse him of preferring to pay all the costs of taking him to court and housing him in prison for 10 years. You claim it would just be "cheaper to buy me what I need to get away with it."

Sorry, pal - I'd rather pay $30,000 a year to support a thief in prison than to pay him $300 to help him commit his crime and remain on the loose to do it over and over....


No comments: