The womb Nazis are at it again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Rana said:
Bravo, women have insurance policies, they pay premiums, they want their insurance to cover contraception, they don't want you to pay for their contraception, they just want their insurance to cover it.
Click to expand...

????....has insurance stopped spreading the cost of medical care among all policy holders now?.....
 
apple0154 said:
My goodness, your knowledge is certainly limited. Birth control has been opposed by the church and millions of it's followers since it became available. Even Mother Theresa, the misguided soul that she was, championed against condom distribution while people were being infected and dying from AIDS. How much needless suffering and death needs to occur before someone says, "Enough!" and throws the religious nuts to the lions?

Do educate yourself. You look incredibly stupid calling others dimwitted when your ignorance knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

listen up, shit for brains.....no law has ever been passed and no law will ever be passed and no law will ever be proposed to be passed which would prohibit the use of contraceptives.....no amount of bullshit spreading on your part is ever going to change that......your idiotic posturing is annoying and does nothing except demonstrate you are very nearly the most idiotic and worthless poster here......in that, Legion has saved you......
 
Yurt said:
apple....you have more than 6 posts to \\\///....onceler says that means you're obsessed with him

lol
Click to expand...

\\()// is at the top of his game today. I mean, what individual would not be concerned with contraception considering there are over 6 BILLION people in the world. Obviously one who knows they will never be in a position to increase the population and that's Bravo. However, often times the obvious goes undetected and it takes a genius to spot it and \\()// just did that. Kudos to him.
 
apple0154 said:
My issue is in msg #5 you wrote, "and still the liberal clowns claim women are limited in their access to contraceptives...."

Yes, some women are limited not just to contraceptives but time-sensitive contraceptives. And as for obtaining a lawyer it is the pharmacist's prerogative to decline dispensing contraceptives if it goes against their religious beliefs. It doesn't get any more crazy than that.

And what gal is going to want to go from pharmacy to pharmacy the morning after a night at the bar followed by torrid sex during the wee hours of the morning? Hung over. Exhausted. Ruffled hair and a frazzled look upon her face. Have you no compassion?

And what type of response is the next guy going to get when he propositions her and she recalls the hassle of the last experience?

Do you ever consider others?
Click to expand...

if she's inclined to have torrid sex after a night in a bar why didn't she plan ahead and have a morning after pill in her medicine cabinet?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
listen up, shit for brains.....no law has ever been passed and no law will ever be passed and no law will ever be proposed to be passed which would prohibit the use of contraceptives.....
Click to expand...

As late as 1960, the American legal system was not hospitable to the idea of birth control. Thirty states had statutes on the books prohibiting or restricting the sale and advertisement of contraception. These laws stretched back almost a century, reflecting an underlying American belief that contraception was lewd, immoral and promoted promiscuity.
Comstock's Crusade


The driving force behind the original anti-birth control statutes was a New Yorker named Anthony Comstock.

Born in rural Connecticut in 1844, Comstock served in the infantry during the Civil War, then moved to New York City and found work as a salesman.

A devout Christian, he was appalled by what he saw in the city's streets.

It seemed to him that the town was teeming with prostitutes and pornography.

In the late 1860s, Comstock began supplying the police with information for raids on sex trade merchants and came to prominence with his anti-obscenity crusade.

Also offended by explicit advertisements for birth control devices, he soon identified the contraceptive industry as one of his targets.

Comstock was certain that the availability of contraceptives alone promoted lust and lewdness.



Making Birth Control a Federal Crime


In 1872 Comstock set off for Washington with an anti-obscenity bill, including a ban on contraceptives, that he had drafted himself.

On March 3, 1873, Congress passed the new law, later known as the Comstock Act.

The statute defined contraceptives as obscene and illicit, making it a federal offense to disseminate birth control through the mail or across state lines.


Public Support for Comstock Laws


This statute was the first of its kind in the Western world, but at the time, the American public did not pay much attention to the new law.

Anthony Comstock was jubilant over his legislative victory.

Soon after the federal law was on the books, twenty-four states enacted their own versions of Comstock laws to restrict the contraceptive trade on a state level.


The Most Restrictive States


New England residents lived under the most restrictive laws in the country.

In Massachusetts, anyone disseminating contraceptives -- or information about contraceptives -- faced stiff fines and imprisonment.

But by far the most restrictive state of all was Connecticut, where the act of using birth control was even prohibited by law.

Married couples could be arrested for using birth control in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and subjected to a one-year prison sentence.

In actuality, law enforcement agents often looked the other way when it came to anti-birth control laws, but the statutes remained on the books.


Sanger's Crusade


These laws remained unchallenged until birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger made it her mission to challenge the Comstock Act.

The first successful change in the laws came from Sanger's 1916 arrest for opening the first birth control clinic in America.

The case that grew out of her arrest resulted in the 1918 Crane decision, which allowed women to use birth control for therapeutic purposes.


Changing Laws for Changing Times


The next amendment of the Comstock Laws came with the 1936 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, United States v. One Package. The decision made it possible for doctors to distribute contraceptives across state lines.

This time Margaret Sanger had been instrumental in maneuvering behind the scenes to bring the matter before the court.

While this decision did not eliminate the problem of the restrictive "chastity laws" on the state level, it was a crucial ruling.

Physicians could now legally mail birth control devices and information throughout the country, paving the way for the legitimization of birth control by the medical industry and the general public.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopleevents/e_comstock.html
 
PostmodernProphet said:
listen up, shit for brains.....no law has ever been passed and no law will ever be passed and no law will ever be proposed to be passed which would prohibit the use of contraceptives.....no amount of bullshit spreading on your part is ever going to change that......your idiotic posturing is annoying and does nothing except demonstrate you are very nearly the most idiotic and worthless poster here......in that, Legion has saved you......
Click to expand...

Listen, you ignorant turd, (I just may take a liking to ad homs) :) The point is the morning after pill is a contraceptive and pharmacists are not obliged to dispense it. I don't care if there is a law prohibiting contraceptives or a law allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives. The result is the same. Women are denied contraceptives and it it's a very bad policy/custom/call it what you want. A woman living in a rural area may drive a fair distance to a drug store only to be denied the morning after pill. She may then decide to drive another considerable distance or she may not and take a chance. Then there's those who oppose abortion. So, in effect, the goal is to force her to bear a child. A sneaky, underhanded, vile approach taken by Republican Conservatives, those religious imitating scum.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if she's inclined to have torrid sex after a night in a bar why didn't she plan ahead and have a morning after pill in her medicine cabinet?.....
Click to expand...

It's obvious neither you nor Bravo are familiar with sex so I'll do my best to explain the "ins and outs". While many are inclined to have sex after a night at the bar there are many who, for one reason or another, are not so inclined. Not only does it depend on the clientele but one can waste a good portion of the evening with someone only to discover a deal-breaker at the last moment. Conversely, one may become enthralled and drag the person home. In most cases a person inclined to share their bed on a frequent basis is prepared. It's the novice, the love-struck, the teen who find themselves in a situation they're not prepared for. Therefore, immediate action is necessary to avoid an unwanted pregnancy and that's where the morning after pill enters the picture.
 
\\()// said:
As late as 1960, the American legal system was not hospitable to the idea of birth control. Thirty states had statutes on the books prohibiting or restricting the sale and advertisement of contraception. These laws stretched back almost a century, reflecting an underlying American belief that contraception was lewd, immoral and promoted promiscuity.
Comstock's Crusade


The driving force behind the original anti-birth control statutes was a New Yorker named Anthony Comstock.

Born in rural Connecticut in 1844, Comstock served in the infantry during the Civil War, then moved to New York City and found work as a salesman.

A devout Christian, he was appalled by what he saw in the city's streets.

It seemed to him that the town was teeming with prostitutes and pornography.

In the late 1860s, Comstock began supplying the police with information for raids on sex trade merchants and came to prominence with his anti-obscenity crusade.

Also offended by explicit advertisements for birth control devices, he soon identified the contraceptive industry as one of his targets.

Comstock was certain that the availability of contraceptives alone promoted lust and lewdness.



Making Birth Control a Federal Crime


In 1872 Comstock set off for Washington with an anti-obscenity bill, including a ban on contraceptives, that he had drafted himself.

On March 3, 1873, Congress passed the new law, later known as the Comstock Act.

The statute defined contraceptives as obscene and illicit, making it a federal offense to disseminate birth control through the mail or across state lines.


Public Support for Comstock Laws


This statute was the first of its kind in the Western world, but at the time, the American public did not pay much attention to the new law.

Anthony Comstock was jubilant over his legislative victory.

Soon after the federal law was on the books, twenty-four states enacted their own versions of Comstock laws to restrict the contraceptive trade on a state level.


The Most Restrictive States


New England residents lived under the most restrictive laws in the country.

In Massachusetts, anyone disseminating contraceptives -- or information about contraceptives -- faced stiff fines and imprisonment.

But by far the most restrictive state of all was Connecticut, where the act of using birth control was even prohibited by law.

Married couples could be arrested for using birth control in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and subjected to a one-year prison sentence.

In actuality, law enforcement agents often looked the other way when it came to anti-birth control laws, but the statutes remained on the books.


Sanger's Crusade


These laws remained unchallenged until birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger made it her mission to challenge the Comstock Act.

The first successful change in the laws came from Sanger's 1916 arrest for opening the first birth control clinic in America.

The case that grew out of her arrest resulted in the 1918 Crane decision, which allowed women to use birth control for therapeutic purposes.


Changing Laws for Changing Times


The next amendment of the Comstock Laws came with the 1936 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, United States v. One Package. The decision made it possible for doctors to distribute contraceptives across state lines.

This time Margaret Sanger had been instrumental in maneuvering behind the scenes to bring the matter before the court.

While this decision did not eliminate the problem of the restrictive "chastity laws" on the state level, it was a crucial ruling.

Physicians could now legally mail birth control devices and information throughout the country, paving the way for the legitimization of birth control by the medical industry and the general public.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopleevents/e_comstock.html
Click to expand...

The need for posts like this cause me to question if JPP is populated with pre-adolescents. People claiming to be adults, married with families, supposedly knowledgeable and yet they know so little about sex and birth control and past archaic, barbaric laws and are unable to understand the motivation behind the folks whom we try to expose. Or is their feigning ignorance all part of a Republican Conservative scheme to lull the people into complacency while furthering their vile plan to subjugate women?

"Nothing to worry about. No law has ever been passed and no law will ever be passed and no law will ever be proposed to be passed which would prohibit the use of contraceptives. Never. Impossible. Now go make me a sandwich."

PmP: Grossly ignorant or a whacked out, religious misogynist? Only time will tell, I suppose.
 
You c and P rant has nothing to do with what we're talking about......

Are you having some sort of argument with yourself or just hallucinating or what.....

Its laughable and pathetic at the same time......

Its like having a good talk about rock and roll and you come along with a post about jerking off to a picture of your mother.....

totally nuts and out of the blue......

All there is to finish this is to say....you're dismissed....and get some help.
 
apple0154 said:
Listen, you ignorant turd, (I just may take a liking to ad homs) :) The point is the morning after pill is a contraceptive and pharmacists are not obliged to dispense it. I don't care if there is a law prohibiting contraceptives or a law allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives. The result is the same. Women are denied contraceptives and it it's a very bad policy/custom/call it what you want. A woman living in a rural area may drive a fair distance to a drug store only to be denied the morning after pill. She may then decide to drive another considerable distance or she may not and take a chance. Then there's those who oppose abortion. So, in effect, the goal is to force her to bear a child. A sneaky, underhanded, vile approach taken by Republican Conservatives, those religious imitating scum.
Click to expand...

a fucking idiot speaks.....saying nothing true.....
 
\\()// said:
Please convey my sincere sympathy. Did she practice birth control?
Click to expand...

first of all, she is sixty......second if you ever find someone willing to marry you and move into your mother's basement with you, you might learn something about sex and marriage.......third, she appreciates your sympathy, but not for the reasons you offered it.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
first of all, she is sixty......second if you ever find someone willing to marry you and move into your mother's basement with you, you might learn something about sex and marriage.......third, she appreciates your sympathy, but not for the reasons you offered it.....
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
listen up, shit for brains.....no law has ever been passed and no law will ever be passed and no law will ever be proposed to be passed which would prohibit the use of contraceptives.....
Click to expand...

LOL
 
apple0154 said:
It's obvious neither you nor Bravo are familiar with sex so I'll do my best to explain the "ins and outs".
Click to expand...

thank you....having never taken a drunk home from a bar to have sex with her, I was unaware of all of this.....I bow to your experience......though not to your intelligence....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top