This is a good point...

Comparing birth control and cigarettes?

lol....kinda like comparing apples and oranges huh? Yeah, birth control coverage is an important issue especially when trying to combat poverty. A large majority of poverty comes from early pregnancies and lack of availability of birth control, strict abortion laws, and lack of proper sexual education all add to the number of teen pregnancies drastically. More teen pregnancies = more poverty. Then you will have the people saying that we need more money going into the welfare systems to help the "poor youngens who didn't know better". Hence giving us an increased dependency on our government. Increased dependency = being less independent. This leads to more corruption because of the ability for the government to control more aspects of our lives. You guys see where i am going with this? Maybe i'm just talking crazy...

Cuppy,

First of all, my name is Drew. In that you don't know me and considering that this is supposed to be a board where the exchange of ideas trumps talentless antics, I'm not sure why you could not simply address me as Drew?

Regardless, the following is what I meant as it pertains to Congressional funding of the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure what history book you'd have me read or why you think I struggle with comprehension but here is a small segment of a story along with a link to the original story.

"In a 92 to 6 vote, the Senate yesterday approved unrestricted funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that allows continuation of the current military course of action through the end of President Bush's term and beyond.

In exchange for that unencumbered freedom to operate in Iraq, Bush agreed to demands by congressional Democrats to create a new higher-education benefit for veterans and their families, and to extend unemployment benefits."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062604076.html?nav=rss_email/components

I'll ask again; why did the Senate pass funding 92-6 when according to a great many people ending the conflict and bringing home the troops is the most important issue we face? Sure, there were trades that were made but isn't bringing the troops home priority number one? And if so, why did your Democratic-controlled Senate fund war efforts that last beyond the President's remaining time in office?

Finally, a parting suggestion: Before smugly asserting that a person increase their level of education by way of both history books and a comprehension class you might pause long enough to ensure that you don't need a class of your own. For example, a good spelling class might have come in handy, if for no other reason than it might have assisted you in spelling "definitive" correctly shortly before suggesting I become more educated.

Later,
Drew


**Before I sign off, I thought you might appreciate two quotes I found:

"The legislative judgment to take the country to war carries with it a duty throughout the conflict to decide that military force remains in the national interest. ... Congress is responsible for monitoring what it has set in motion. In the midst of war, there are no grounds for believing that the President's authority is superior to the collective judgment of its elected representatives. Congress has both the constitutional authority and the responsibility to retain control and re-calibrate national policy whenever necessary."

— Louis Fisher, Constitutional Specialist, Library of Congress


"Congress possesses substantial constitutional authority to regulate ongoing military operations and even to bring them to an end."

— David J. Barron, Harvard Law School

Did any one know that she is currently under investigation for abuse of power by Alaska lawmakers?. Real kick in the butt if shes found guilty.

Yes, that's the gist of what I was saying.

So... how is that a correct analogy?

A woman can have sex, without the pill, right?
A man cannot have sex without Viagra, right?

Pregnancy is due to the natural workings of her body, right?
Impotence is the result of a medical condition, right?

There is no commonality between "The Pill" and "Viagra", there are two completely different reasons for those drugs.

So, all men can't have sex without Viagra? And why shouldn't insurance cover birth control?

Except that they were not in control. The percentage did not give them ultimate control. Second, the repubs were hoping the dems would do something like that because then they could ream them a new one over their failure to the troops, our sons and daughters.

Well don't you know by the republican philosophy women should keep their legs closed and that way they won't have that problem. And since by their analogy women are the control of a man's sexual organs, give the men viagra and make it the woman's fault if sex happens. As it has been for most of our history in a male biased society.

maybe one should ask the troops what they think. But i thankfully they get to vote too. yayyyyyyyy

I believe that Viagra would only be covered by insurance with a prescription.

You didn't answer either question.

Take away abortion, take away birth control, but make it the woman's fault if she has an unwanted pregnancy and perhaps may be unable to take care of the child.

That is still no reason to kill a baby, there is adoption, if you don't want the baby give it a chance in life, let the baby have the same chance that they got. Pregnancy is one of the hazards of having a Sex life,,

Wow. This has to be one of the lamest arguments yet. I don't think everyone should use birth control, but I most certainly believe that if less men were "getting it up," we wouldn't need all the birth control anyway!! How stupid is this conversation?!!? The only reason McCain would support that is because he NEEDS VIAGRA!

The answers are obvious.

1) Some men cannot have sex without Viagra. I'm sure you are trying to make a point with this, which is why I noted that Viagra should only be covered by insurance if it is prescribed by a doctor.

2) Already answered this one. The ability to get pregnant isn't a medical condition, it's the normal condition. A woman doesn't have to be on "the pill" in order to have sex. There is no infirmity.

Those are terrible arguments. I hope you realize that.

What about all those unwanted kids who are out there now?