Signe Wilkinson by Signe Wilkinson

?fh=61a517aecab12d05415f82e86fcfdf0c

Comments (44) Jump to Comments Form

  1. Buzzy-One

    Buzzy-One said, 3 months ago

    Wonder if Ms Wilkson was inspired by a couple of our posters ?

  2. meowdam

    meowdam said, 3 months ago

    What if you had to choose one or the other
    How many men would fund abortion over Viagra?
    How many women would fund Viagra over abortion?
    I’d fund only the 50mg Viagra and first trimester abortions as a compromise.
    Elect Meowdam !!!

  3. babbie

    babbieGenius_badge said, 3 months ago

    I don’t suppose anyone drafted these provisions with an aim of aggravating our overpopulation problem, but that’s a bonus earned by our religious bigotry and gender bias,

  4. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, 3 months ago

    I decided I would bite my tongue on this one and remain silent …. sounds of silence follows

  5. Jeremy Hafliger

    Jeremy HafligerGenius_badge said, 3 months ago

    It is so true. How is it that we can fund Viagara but not birth control. This is a great country, but a strange culture.

  6. cjr53

    cjr53 said, 3 months ago

    Seems to me that Viagra is really a recreational drug and should not be paid for through insurance.

  7. ezdeb

    ezdeb said, 3 months ago

    Wouldn’t it be awesome if some pharmacists began refusing to fill prescriptions for Viagra on religious grounds? I’m sure some religious reason could be found, twisted and used against men!

    Sorry, bcs. I’m not as good as you.

  8. meowdam

    meowdam said, 3 months ago

    cjr53 said, 13 minutes ago

    Seems to me that Viagra is really a recreational drug and should not be paid for through insurance.

    Hef Is that you ?

  9. BOB HASTY

    BOB HASTYGenius_badge said, 3 months ago

    As long as abortion is a legal medical procedure, our constitution requires that it be available to all. No matter what the right-wingnuts and Christian absolutes say, I believe that the mothers’s life is as precious as her child-to-be. To sacrifice her life for the sake of wrong-headed theology is a violation of God’s law. But helping men have sex does not insure procreation. It simply allows for self-gratification. Testosterone replacement therapy, yes! Artificially induced erections, highly questionable!
    Rev. Dr. Bob Hasty

  10. 4uk4ata

    4uk4ata said, 3 months ago

    Well, I do not see why it necessarily has to be available to all. I agree that insurance plans should not be prohibited to offer it, though.

  11. Gladius

    Gladius said, 3 months ago

    I have no problem with private insurance plans offering to pay for viagra. I do have a problem with public money, medicare and medicaid, paying for it. There was a huge outcry in NY a couple of years ago when they found out that the state was paying for viagra for several convicted sex offenders.

  12. GNWachs

    GNWachsGenius_badge said, 3 months ago

    Two comments

    1) Whether or not to cover abortions is a decision that must be made. Politically it is a very difficult one because whatever you do will cause a mixed reaction. You will lose some votes and gain others. It may come down to a bottom line decision by the politicians.

    2) If the FDA approves a medication a prescription plan should cover it. That includes the morning after pill, Viagra, birth control etc.

  13. GNWachs

    GNWachsGenius_badge said, 3 months ago

    Saltipera

    Your last sentence is very revealing. If you truly believe that, then forget about the health plan. It would benefit a minority of Americans to the detriment of the majority. The entire purpose is to bring down the benefits now available to “us all” to the small minority. It is solely self interest at the cost to society as a whole.

  14. dtroutma

    dtroutma said, 3 months ago

    Viagra was a cardiac drug, then prescribed for a real medical condition, now one of the most “off use” prescription drugs. Birth control serves a purpose to PREVENT conception or abortion. Morning after pills do the same thing. Somewhere toward the end of second trimester, “viability” becomes a question. Before that, from a BIOLOGICAL perspective, you don’t have a survivable human being, it is the chicken vs egg discussion.

    Paying for Viagra, or any other medical situation for someone who NEEDS it, is one thing. Paying just for ADDED pleasure is beyond “medical” treatment. Anyone who thinks an abortion is “pleasurable”, for anyone, has a few screws loose.

  15. kat827618

    kat827618Genius_badge said, 3 months ago

    Priceless.

  16. johnking

    johnking said, 3 months ago

    Rev. Hasty, where in the Constitution does it say that everything legal must be supplied at public expense? Furthermore, legalized abortion only on the rarest occasions saves a mother’s life. Most Americans likely oppose public subsidizing of Viagra, and that would be especially true of pro-life people. In other words, Signe has twisted the truth, her customary low level of argumentation.

  17. omQ R

    omQ RGenius_badge said, 3 months ago

    Satipera: The morning after pill is still considered a contraceptive as it is designed to either prevent a woman’s ovaries from releasing an egg or making it so that a fertilised egg can’t embed or implant itself within the womb. That’s why the window to take it is very short, within 72 hours of unprotected sex. It won’t work if a woman is pregnant i.e cause an abortion.

    However, there are those who believe pregnancy begins at fertilisation so the latter would constitute abortion.
    Then again, recent studies are suggesting that the morning after pills are only really effective at suppressing ovulation and not avoiding implantation, which I guess means it should also be in the clear for pro-lifers who consider fertilised eggs the beginning of life.

  18. annamargaret1866

    annamargaret1866 said, 3 months ago

    ezdeb, some religions hold that sex is for procreation, so then men who are past wanting kids shouldn’t be having sex anyway.

  19. omQ R

    omQ RGenius_badge said, 3 months ago

    Satipera: Thank my wife, she’s the one who explained it to me. She has more of a problem with people who baulk at the morning after pill yet use the coil. The coil in theory should be as controversial as the morning after pill, according to her. I had no idea what exactly the coil did either until she explained it to me, too.

    I’m picking up quite a bit from this forum.

  20. olfart

    olfart said, 3 months ago

    Anna;
    I never wanted kids.I (almost) always wanted sex. Those religions who think that is any of their business should go have sex with themselves.

  21. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

    The “life begins at conception” position is not logical. If you were to take an unfertilized egg, inject a donor DNA into it (cloning), and it grow into an offspring in a donor mother, that offspring would, by definition, not be alive as it had never been fertilized. Ask Dolly the sheep about that, and thousands of other farm animals.

  22. dtroutma

    dtroutma said, 3 months ago

    Based on the fact that roughly half of fertilized eggs do not attach to the uterus and grow, I find it hard to accept banning women from having sex, then their period. That is what the “at fertilization” argument leads to. I can’t accept biologically, a blastophore as a “human” yet either, as they are groups of undifferentiated cells for quite some time. When there is a functional brain and body parts, the discussion becomes more difficult. That takes a LONG time to develop.

    Paying to make sex better, is different than making it merely possible. Making babies you can’t afford, and/or will mistreat for a lifetime because they weren’t wanted, or who have no brains (literally-anencephally), makes preventing their birth far more “moral”.

  23. oldlegodad

    oldlegodadGenius_badge said, 3 months ago

    omQ R, How did you ever become mature enough to have ever had a wife.< WHO had to explain th B&Bs to you??
    IDIOT UR

  24. omQ R

    omQ RGenius_badge said, 3 months ago

    oldlegodad grouses:
    “omQ R, How did you ever become mature enough to have ever had a wife.< WHO had to explain th B&Bs to you??
    IDIOT UR”

    Ad hominem insults now? Tut, tut.

    From your tone and contempt I’m assured you can explain how ECPs work in some detail without looking these up. As for the coil, I’m sure you’re also able to perfectly explain its function with some detail of the intricacies of the female anatomy, again without looking this up. Sure.

    My wife could explain in more detail than I knew. I doubt most people can. *shrug.

    Judging from your other responses on this forum, you don’t get much respect from me, you’ve shown yourself to be a bigot and a fool.

  25. Gladius

    Gladius said, 3 months ago

    sat,
    My response dealt with a particular drug. Anything else you read into it is the result of your own twisted logic. If you want something to be concerned about it should be the state of the U.S. laws concerning sexual crimes and the fact that most 1st world nations seem to be heading down the same broken path. UK is included.

    http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614

    This is a leader. The more detailed version is also located on the site.

  26. ynnek58

    ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

    personally I’d rather not pay for anyone’s adventures – either before the fun begins, or after the fun is a distant memory and the ‘damage’ has been done. Why can’t people just learn to be responsible for themselves. If you can’t afford a condom – you can’t afford sex. If you can’t afford Viagra, you can’t afford sex. If you can’t afford a baby, don’t play with a loaded ‘gun’.

  27. Corosive Frog

    Corosive Frog said, 3 months ago

    ynnek, people never worked that way.

    And horny people with nobody tio f*ck can end up bad. Why do you think muslim kamikaze are promized 70 virgins in heaven?

    LOL

  28. ynnek58

    ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

    Corosive Frog,
    Yeah I know, but to dream people will act responsibly… it a dream anyway.

  29. Gladius

    Gladius said, 3 months ago

    sat
    Yup
    I guess that’s why you decided to ridiculously exaggerate it.

  30. charlie555

    charlie555 said, 3 months ago

    The immortal soul is infused simultaneously with fertilization. Abortion kills the mortal body of this immortal soul who now never has a chance to live an earthly life.

    In the next life this soul will be given full knowledge of what was done to him, and will meet those responsible when they die (if they come to the same place).

    Comparing this to the use of Viagra is nonsensical.

  31. M Henri Day

    M Henri Day said, 3 months ago

    Well, charlie555, given that «[m]an that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble», perhaps that «immortal soul» will thank those who helped it avoid this vale of tears….

    Henri

  32. cdward

    cdward said, 3 months ago

    “The immortal soul is infused simultaneously with fertilization.”

    I’d like you to quote that particular passage of scripture for me.

  33. ynnek58

    ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

    he can’t, it’s tradition, not scripture.

  34. omQ R

    omQ RGenius_badge said, 3 months ago

    ynnek said: he can’t, it’s tradition, not scripture.

    …?
    O Qué? Huh? Perhaps you should wait for charlie555 to reply…
    Mind you, nonsense for nonsense, the scales remain in equilibrium.

  35. ynnek58

    ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

    sorry, I just happen to knew it weren’t there…I’ll slink off now…

  36. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

    I have a question of logic here, if anyone feels up to the challenge.

    Premise: God has a plan for every soul.
    Premise: God is opposed to abortion.
    Specific case: A doctor performs an abortion.

    Question: Did the doctor overrule God’s plan and force Him to make new plans? Meaning God is not omnipotent and His will can be thwarted. Or was the abortion for this soul in God’s plans to begin with? Which means God is not opposed to abortion.

  37. charlie555

    charlie555 said, 3 months ago

    cdward

    ynnek58 is right - it’s not specifically in Scripture but is reasonable to believe based on the many instances in Scripture where the Lord names men even before they are physically conceived.

    Naming indicates a relationship between the one naming and the one named; that is, between two living persons.

    Scripture does give us the personhood of a 4 day old embryo. Mary went “in haste” to visit Elizabeth - a 4 day journey. So Jesus was only 4 days old - possibly not even implanted in the womb - when John Baptist recognized Him as a Person.

  38. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

    Say, charlie555: would a human clone have a soul, never having been fertilized? If so, when did he get it?

  39. cdward

    cdward said, 3 months ago

    Re: “The immortal soul is infused simultaneously with fertilization.”

    charlie555, I knew it wasn’t in scripture. Tradition, as ynnek58 discussed, is not a high enough standard since it is not universal, and your tradition clearly is not mine.

    As to God naming people before they are conceived, God certainly has that right, but that means that God has named something that does not yet exist – so the soul has not been infused yet since the conception has not taken place. God’s naming something before it exists (including before the embryo exists) doesn’t mean that “The immortal soul is infused simultaneously with fertilization.” It only means that when that child is born, it will bear the name that God has decided.

    As to your “4 day old embryo”, it’s poor exegesis at least. First, you decided that “in haste” or “with haste” means that very day. That’s your reading, not what it actually says.

    Second, even if she left the moment she heard, (or even the next day or two or five, which I doubt), this is the Child of God we are talking about. This was no ordinary conception, and therefore cannot even remotely be used as an example of what others might be like. Since this is the seed of God growing in Mary, it’s just plain different.

    But mind you, only Luke has this little incident, and by most standards of biblical criticism, those passages pericopes which occur only once do not carry the weight of those which occur in more than one gospel.

  40. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, 3 months ago

    Good to have you back, cdward. We need a genuine Biblical scholar around for these issues.

  41. ynnek58

    ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

    obviously, life begins somewhere between conception and birth. Abortion would be at best the snuffing of potential life and at worst murder. It is pretty sure that when the fetus is viable, you’d be closer to the latter, than the first. It’s not some place I personally would go. It’s a HARD topic. I think the [mostly] common ground is that people should take care with their productiveness capability and the problem would mostly not come up. Heat of passion aside… get a grip, and get a sheath, and if that don’t work, take some responsibility.

  42. charlie555

    charlie555 said, 3 months ago

    cdward

    Tradition is universal if that tradition happens to be true. If I err, I err on the side of life. The worst I did was believe these men to be immortal, even if I do not meet them in the next life.

    However, those who err of the side of death will have to face all these aborted men in the next life. Quite a gamble to take for the sake of pride.

    My tradition holds Jesus to be truly MAN (as well as truly GOD). All true of Jesus as a man is true for every man.

    If you doubt some of Scripture, you doubt all of it, so it is useless for you to discuss it with people who believe ALL OF IT is the inspired Word of God.

    Scripture is useless without tradition (as you prove). Anyone can interpret it any way they please. I use it to show my tradition is reasonable with the Word. Scripture supports immortal life from fertilization, but cannot prove what is a matter of Faith.

    Nowhere is abortion supported by Scripture. Even the man’s seed is considered sacred in Scripture.

  43. charlie555

    charlie555 said, 3 months ago

    DrCanuck

    If God allows a clone to have life, it will have a soul, just like an identical twin who is split from his brother in the womb. So it will never really be a clone of the donor, but a unique human being who happens to have the same genetic make-up as another.

    Disclaimer: Cloning is an abomination.

  44. DrCanuck

    DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

    But charlie, WHEN does the clone get its soul?