Sandra Fluke is no fluke

[_beastie]

bumping up so Droopy can apologize for distorting Ms. Fluke's statements, and using the distortion to impugn her character.

It was a misperception, not a willful distortion, for which I have already given ground. As mentioned, however, it changes nothing of the core argument and the problems her claims present.

It makes your accusation that she was a lying, deranged individual with an agenda groundless. I don't see you apologizing for impugning her character.

The fact is that people are going to have sex. You can shut your ears and scream LALALALALALA as much as you like, but they will have sex. And some of them will be unmarried, or married without being ready for children. That is simple reality.

Now the result of that sex, without reliable birth control, will be unplanned and unwanted babies. The cost of THAT to society as a whole is far greater than the cost of birth control to the insurance company/group.

The additional fact is that birth control pills are a more reliable method of contraception than condoms. Again, closing your eyes and pretending that you can wish away reality just doesn't cut it in the real world. The next fact that you willfully ignore is that the cheaper forms of bc are also the ones that cause a myriad of side effects, like migraines, acne, and weight gain. That means less compliance. That means unwanted pregnancies.

This is a good demonstration of what I find idiotic about republicans like you (not all, just the ones like you). You play some game of make believe, in which you can make-believe that the rest of the world will bend to your moral will, and if they won't, you don't have to be involved in the consequences. Lovely world, that, but make-believe. Not very effective for the real world. Go live on an island.

Given the FACT that people are going to continue having sex, and given the FACT that compliance is lower with cheaper forms of contraception, and given the FACT that the cost to society of unwanted and unplanned babies is FAR higher than any birth control, I think we could give out free bc pills to all women and come out ahead. Better yet, norplant implants, which are even more effective.

But people like you play make-believe and the rest of us end up paying for your LALALALALAs.

Now it's time for you to apologize for calling Fluke a slut, in so many words. Seriously.


(by the way, let's see some references proving your assertion that these are privileged, rich women who can easily afford the cost of bc pills. That ought to be easy for you, given how well you research your claims before making them. cough cough)

[_Droopy]

This is what the major institutions of our culture have become and reflects clearly and explicitly upon the intellectual and moral level at which they perceive the world.

If Rosa Parks had been allowed to keep her seat, she would have remained an unknown seamstress. Sometimes history pushes ordinary people into the spotlight. They become symbols because of their actions once they get there.

What does the early civil rights movement have to do with the desire of young college woman for third party subsidization of their sexual activities?

It's important to understand WHY Sandra Fluke is in this position in the first place. She wouldn't be famous without a lot of help from the GOP. Deomocrats requested that Fluke be part of the committee to testify before the House Oversight Committee investigating Health Care reform regulations requiring religious organizations to provide health care plans with birth control for institutions they control (like hospitals) that do not primarily rely upon members of the faithful as employees. If Darryl Issa would have accepted her as the only female on a committee enpaneled by GOP controlled committee had enpaneled, her testimony would have been safely ensconced in the Congressional Record. (QUICK: Name another member appointed to that committee.)

But no, Congressman Issa decided that the committee would be better served by an all-male panel when it came to an issue involving women's reproductive choices. The House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee then convened a meeting to invite Fluke to speak. Her testimony did make ripples, but the real waves were made when Rush Limbaugh called her a slut and a prostitute because she wanted to be paid to have sex.

Fluke is a 30 year old professional political activist and radical feminist ensconced at Georgetown law school where she is a public interest (i.e., she litigates in behalf of the welfare state) lawyer. She is not a college student but a political activist, which is why she appeared at Pelosi's hearings as the sole speaker and advocate for her cause, without any alternative views being presented.

Based upon both her presentation there, but more to the point, her speech at the DNC, she's an intellectual lightweight who can barely adduce a logically coherent argument and who is quite comfortable with the most inflammatory and vacuous demagoguery within modern political memory.

It was a that point that Sandra Fluke became a cause celebre. In order to become famous, Sandra Fluke needed foils. Darryl Issa and Rush Limbaugh were only to happy to accept the roles.

The fact of the matter is that, unless $1,000 IUDs are all the rage at Georgetown, to run through $1,000 of contraceptives per year, a woman is either buying the most expensive, high end pills on the market, or she is buying and stocking condoms. In any of these cases, the fundamental principles still obtain: these are their lifestyle choices, their behavior, and their responsibility regarding any consequences or the goods necessary to circumvent them.

You're cult leader is calling you, met...the Kool-Aid is being mixed even as we speak...

One lump, or two?

[_Analytics]

I highly doubt, as I said before, that any differential in health between woman who have children and those who go to law school and party like its 1999 would be statistically significant enough to actually register as a salient rise in prices for you in the doctor's office, especially since medicine is subdivided, past general practitioners, into numerous sub-specialties having no direct relation to any problems that may or may not be caused by having children, which has its own specialists (its amazing how if you scratch a leftist just a little bit you will inevitably find an anti-natalist below the thin, translucent skin of "social justice").

Ruskin said that the work of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions. In that light, it is universally understood among those who price health insurance that the health care costs associated with the segment of the population with the predisposition of having children are very high.

For example, quoting from the summary of a CMS study on healh care spending,

Females 19-44 years old spent 73 percent more per capita than did males of the same age. This is the largest difference measured of any age-group, largely due to the high costs associated with maternity care.

http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics- ... e2004.html

Pregnancy is very expensive. A smooth pregnancy costs several thousands of dollars, and if the pregnancy is bumpy, the insurance company can end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a premature delivery. It is far cheaper for the insurance company (and those who pay premiums) for this to be avoided. It has nothing to do with being anti-natalist—it’s the actuarial reality.

Providing free birth control to everybody who wants it will cause there to be fewer unwanted babies born. The money saved from avoiding unwanted pregnancies is much more than the cost of birth control. This provision of the Affordable Care Act is in fact something that actuaries believe will make health insurance more affordable.

[_beastie]

The fact of the matter is that, unless $1,000 IUDs are all the rage at Georgetown, to run through $1,000 of contraceptives per year, a woman is either buying the most expensive, high end pills on the market, or she is buying and stocking condoms.

Am I talking to a wall?

She's buying expensive bc pills because they are improved and cause less painful or unwanted side effects.

In any of these cases, the fundamental principles still obtain: these are their lifestyle choices, their behavior, and their responsibility regarding any consequences or the goods necessary to circumvent them.

You're cult leader is calling you, met...the Kool-Aid is being mixed even as we speak...

One lump, or two?

Again, with this make-believe world.

In the REAL WORLD, droopy, we all pay the cost of unwanted pregnancies. Wishing it weren't so doesn't make it not so. It may not be fair. It may not be just. But it is the reality of life, and if we refuse to deal with the reality of life, we're left with a big ole' mess.

[_beastie]

Ruskin said that the work of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions. In that light, it is universally understood among those who price health insurance that the health care costs associated with the segment of the population with the predisposition of having children are very high.

For example, quoting from the summary of a CMS study on healh care spending,

Females 19-44 years old spent 73 percent more per capita than did males of the same age. This is the largest difference measured of any age-group, largely due to the high costs associated with maternity care.

http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics- ... e2004.html

Pregnancy is very expensive. A smooth pregnancy costs several thousands of dollars, and if the pregnancy is bumpy, the insurance company can end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a premature delivery. It is far cheaper for the insurance company (and those who pay premiums) for this to be avoided. It has nothing to do with being anti-natalist—it’s the actuarial reality.

Providing free birth control to everybody who wants it will cause there to be fewer unwanted babies born. The money saved from avoiding unwanted pregnancies is much more than the cost of birth control. This provision of the Affordable Care Act is in fact something that actuaries believe will make health insurance more affordable.

Exactly.

And it's not just the medical cost of the pregnancy. The cost of unwanted, unplanned children for whom the parents are ill prepared extends far beyond the medical costs. These children are more likely to end up in problematic homes, more likely to fail at school, and more likely to need government assistance in the future.

What astounds me is that these are the very things republicans like Droopy want society to avoid. These are things we ALL want society to avoid. And yet he willfully demands that we not do one of the most effective things we can do to prevent it. Provide free or very low-cost birth control. People like droopy find more comfort in constructing some superior moral ground from which they scold the rest of the world, ignoring the fact that they're doing WORSE than nothing to remedy the situation as much as possible.

[_beastie]

droopy said:

its amazing how if you scratch a leftist just a little bit you will inevitably find an anti-natalist below the thin, translucent skin of "social justice"

The things that come out of your mouth. Honestly.

It's not being "anti-natalist" to want babies to be born as a result of planned and wanted pregnancies, to parents who are prepared for those children. In fact, it's the exact opposite. I want babies to be born in as optimal situations as possible. To appease your make-believe world, you're willing to turn a blind eye to the simple thing society can do to help ensure that reality as much as humanly possible.

Really, I hope people like droopy are in a tiny minority. Otherwise, we are doomed.

[_Droopy]

It makes your accusation that she was a lying, deranged individual with an agenda groundless. I don't see you apologizing for impugning her character.

CFR.

The fact is that people are going to have sex.

A banality. The other, much more salient fact is that people have choices, and the normal constraints, trade-offs, and limitations of the mortal environment in which we exist condition our decisions based upon the knowledge and trade-offs present at any given time.

You can shut your ears and scream LALALALALALA as much as you like, but they will have sex. And some of them will be unmarried, or married without being ready for children. That is simple reality.

I'm not sure what you actually mean by "reality" here. These are all human choices grounded in value perceptions and fundamental worldview assumptions. Anything is actually possible, not just that "people will..."

Now the result of that sex, without reliable birth control, will be unplanned and unwanted babies. The cost of THAT to society as a whole is far greater than the cost of birth control to the insurance company/group.

Answer: don't have sex until you are married and stand a good chance of having children in a stable, two parent family that is going to be together for the very long haul and you are mature enough to handle the responsibility. These are choices Beastie, not inexorable physical processes like plate tectonics that just happen outside the boundaries of choice and decision.

The additional fact is that birth control pills are a more reliable method of contraception than condoms. Again, closing your eyes and pretending that you can wish away reality just doesn't cut it in the real world. The next fact that you willfully ignore is that the cheaper forms of bc are also the ones that cause a myriad of side effects, like migraines, acne, and weight gain. That means less compliance. That means unwanted pregnancies.

See above.

This is a good demonstration of what I find idiotic about republicans like you (not all, just the ones like you).

I'm not a Republican, and have not been for a number of years now.

You play some game of make believe, in which you can make-believe that the rest of the world will bend to your moral will, and if they won't, you don't have to be involved in the consequences. Lovely world, that, but make-believe. Not very effective for the real world. Go live on an island.

This level of philosophical shallowness and moral immaturity is so very typical of the Left, from past generations to the present. I have no illusions, nor do the vast majority of conservatives, that the world is going to "bend" to our moral will (and, ironically, this very assumption lies, precisely, at the root of leftist ideology and its effects upon and within the last century). It is precisely that you, Fluke, and her many boosters want everyone else to be involved in the consequences of other's lifestyle choices, even when being so involved, and being involved through the coercive force of the state, violates one's conscience and most deeply held beliefs and values, that is the basis of this thread.

Given the FACT that people are going to continue having sex, and given the FACT that compliance is lower with cheaper forms of contraception, and given the FACT that the cost to society of unwanted and unplanned babies is FAR higher than any birth control, I think we could give out free bc pills to all women and come out ahead. Better yet, norplant implants, which are even more effective.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes a deterministic, liner cause-effect relationship between the choice to have sex (which you continue to treat as if it were a mechanistic process of the kinds that occur within physics or chemistry) and unwanted children. It looks like a deductive argument but, if it is, it is unsound for at least two reason, the first being that the first premise is not necessarily true, and the second because you have utterly ignored the substantial societal problems associated with promiscuous sex, the trivialization and recreationalization of human sexuality, the disintegration of the family such behavior and attitudes have been central in generating and maintaining, and the subversion of marriage, motherhood, and fatherhood the sexual revolution encouraged and, indeed, was intended to produce.

Unwanted pregnancies are just the tip of a vast submerged mass of social pathology spawned by your philosophy and its associated politics.

(by the way, let's see some references proving your assertion that these are privileged, rich women who can easily afford the cost of bc pills. That ought to be easy for you, given how well you research your claims before making them. cough cough)

Just over half (55%) receive financial aid. That hardly means, of course, that the other 45% are "poor." They're most likely middle and upper middle class. Average rates of aid can run $23,500. This is a very expensive school, and most aid packages at the typical state university or collage aren't nearly that generous.

In any case, the argument is about the tension between individual liberty and personal responsibility, not who can't afford a pack of Trojans or a box of bc pills.

[_Droopy]

Also, 86% of law school grads end up with an average of $122,319 in debt (not including undergrad debt).

If there are very many truly "poor" students here, they are truly living high off the proverbial hog.

[_beastie]

It makes your accusation that she was a lying, deranged individual with an agenda groundless. I don't see you apologizing for impugning her character.

CFR.

Gee, that reference is SO hard to find. Oh, wait a minute, it's right on this page, just a couple of posts above this one. It was posted by a poster named...oh wait, it's on the tip of my tongue....droopy.

Miss Fluke has publicly claimed that, typically, female law school students at Georgetown need some $3,000 of contraceptives per year. At an average cost of between $20 and $30 per month (Target sells it for as low as $9.00) either Miss Fluke has her phone number plastered across every bathroom stall on campus, or she's an unhinged and monstrously diseducated demagogue with an agenda.

The rest of your response is the just you plugging your ears and shouting LALALALALA.

[_Droopy]

The things that come out of your mouth. Honestly.

Truth is the great solvent.

It's not being "anti-natalist" to want babies to be born as a result of planned and wanted pregnancies, to parents who are prepared for those children. In fact, it's the exact opposite. I want babies to be born in as optimal situations as possible. To appease your make-believe world, you're willing to turn a blind eye to the simple thing society can do to help ensure that reality as much as humanly possible.

That's called, to use the hoary old term, "sexual morality" (otherwise known as the "law of chastity" in the Church). That's the very simple, and very effective answer to most unwanted pregnancies in contemporary society.

Really, I hope people like droopy are in a tiny minority. Otherwise, we are doomed.

We were doomed after 1968. Perhaps we were ultimately doomed after your socialist and eugenicist sister Margaret Sanger placed the cornerstone to the edifice that would eventually become modern second and third wave feminism.