General Discussion

jillan

(39,451 posts) Mon Mar 19, 2012, 11:49 AM Mar 2012

No screenings for breast or cervical cancer for low income women? Then NO screenings for Prostate

cancer either.

Rather than going after Viagra, maybe our comeback should keep it just about healthcare because the wackos cannot get it thru their thick skulls or the bubble, as Maher calls it, that birth control pills are not just for sex.

I would never want to deny a man a screening for prostate cancer that could save his life - so why do they want to deny a woman breast and cervical cancer screenings that could save a woman's life???

That's the real question.

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No screenings for breast or cervical cancer for low income women? Then NO screenings for Prostate (Original Post) jillan Mar 2012 OP

Because they think they can and can get by with it madokie Mar 2012 #1

Makes the point The Traveler Mar 2012 #2

While the cancer screening point is indeed relevant... ljm2002 Mar 2012 #3

madokie

(51,076 posts)

1. Because they think they can and can get by with it

Reply to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 11:51 AM

Mar 2012

This old man is on your side.

The Traveler

(5,632 posts)

2. Makes the point

Reply to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 12:37 PM

Mar 2012

But but don't think they don't get it. They do. They just don't want to admit it in public.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)

3. While the cancer screening point is indeed relevant...

Reply to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 01:28 PM

Mar 2012

...I cannot agree with your statement that we should "keep it just about healthcare". The thing is, birth control pills and Viagra are also "just about healthcare". Humans engage in sexual activity. Shall we dispense with all sex-related healthcare, since it may offend someone's religious sensibilities? So that means no diagnosis or treatment for herpes or syphilis or gonorrhea, right? And we better not be providing enlisted men with condoms, because that just condones their immoral behavior when on leave, and some religious person somewhere may not like the idea that they're paying for it. If they get the clap, that'll learn 'em, huh!!

If we start trying to exclude anything related to sexual activity from the healthcare realm, then logic dictates that we do not give care for childbirth either -- at least not if the woman is unmarried. Because, you know, she engaged in sex while not married, and our religious patriarchs don't want to pay for her slutty behavior.

There are many disorders related to boy-parts and girl-parts. Shall we exclude those too -- after all, the less we pay attention to those parts, the less likely people are to use them.

Sexual and reproductive care IS "healthcare". We're just dealing with a bunch of nutcases who want to revert to an imaginary time when men and women did not engage in premarital or extramarital sex. They are INSANE and deserve to be treated as such.

Reply to this discussion