Why do we (USA) have so many prisoners?

mynameisuntz

vinlyn said:

But that's exactly what I disagree with. Just because you don't believe in federal funding for birth control, doesn't mean you are oppressing women. Now, if you are trying to pass a law against the use of birth control, that may be oppression. In case you hadn't noticed, we need to stop funding everything that we currently fund. Even as a former educator, I think there is some federal funding of schools that can be cut.

Actually this arguably has less to do with federal funding, but more HMOs. But we can still discuss it from a point of federal funding for the sake of debate.

The point is: if you are pro-funding for male hormonal treatment, but anti-funding for female birth control, then I would call that sexist on some level because the most common hormonal treatment for women is birth control. Even if it's not being used as birth control, but rather a legitimate medical treatment.

If anything, the fact that it is called "birth control" under such circumstances is what should change, perhaps. Or if birth control were covered when being used for hormonal treatment, but not when it's being used for, well, "recreational purposes," then that would also be another thing.

You want to stop funding everything we currently fund?! Anarchist society!?

vinlyn

^ I don't think we should be federally funding a woman's birth control or a man's condoms.

And how exactly is an agency supposed to know exactly why a woman is using birth control?

My neighbor gets his toe nails clipped at the federal government's expense. I don't think that's appropriate for tax payer dollars to go for that. Doesn't mean I'm against old people...I am one.

mynameisuntz

That's fair. But it's not about birth control so much as hormone treatment. A man's treatment is covered; a woman's is not. The latter not being covered solely because of its name, even though the purpose has nothing to do with the descriptive words within the name.

If a woman is using BC for hormonal treatment, she'd probably have a script saying so. That wouldn't be an issue.

vinlyn

^ I'm not interested in male or female hormone treatment, so I give you the point about that specific topic.

mynameisuntz

That was really my main point with that. Most people have no problem with HMOs or the government funding male hormone treatment for legitimate purposes, but not female hormone treatment solely because birth control is often the preferred prescription in the latter case.

If you don't want either to be covered, that's fine in terms of equality. But if you don't want female coverage solely because birth control is used, that is sexist on some level.

That's my thought.

karasti

Maybe it bothers me more because I can trace it to Native Americans being directed by my family. My great grandparents (whom I knew and had relationships with) immigrated from Finland in the late 1800s. The farm they both (both sets of my grandparents were from Finland, both sets had small family farms) owned were taken after they forced the NA out and onto Red Lake Reservation, to clear the land for farming, logging and mining. The land our very small town was built on, was a NA encampment, and they were forced out by the logging companies that brought my family here for work. There are pictures of NA camps at the historical society on the same beach my kids now use for recreation, while the descendants of those NA families still probably live on Red Lake Reservation in poverty. Guilt? Probably to some degree, but on my part more so awareness to try to help it not happen again on my behalf.

RebeccaS

I would say federal funding for birth control is a no no. Pay for it or keep it in your pants for both men and women.

I never said discrimination doesn't exist, just that it's really not an overwhelming issue, and not something most of us face in our day to day lives.

The only people who really seem to propagate the issue are the political types who exploit flaws in the system to further their own agendas. None of it is perfect, but things aren't exactly terrible either.

mynameisuntz

RebeccaS said:

I would say federal funding for birth control is a no no. Pay for it or keep it in your pants for both men and women.

Let's be honest, this doesn't work at all in terms of offsetting unexpected pregnancies, or offsetting pregnancies to parents who cannot properly care for a child

RebeccaS

You can't get pregnant with your pants on

mynameisuntz

RebeccaS said:

You can't get pregnant with your pants on

Hey I understand. But abstinence-only sex education is an epic fail based on the statistics.

RebeccaS

mynameisuntz said:

RebeccaS said:

You can't get pregnant with your pants on

Hey I understand. But abstinence-only sex education is an epic fail based on the statistics.

My point is that it's the responsibility of the individual, not the tax payer.

RebeccaS

karasti said:

Maybe it bothers me more because I can trace it to Native Americans being directed by my family. My great grandparents (whom I knew and had relationships with) immigrated from Finland in the late 1800s. The farm they both (both sets of my grandparents were from Finland, both sets had small family farms) owned were taken after they forced the NA out and onto Red Lake Reservation, to clear the land for farming, logging and mining. The land our very small town was built on, was a NA encampment, and they were forced out by the logging companies that brought my family here for work. There are pictures of NA camps at the historical society on the same beach my kids now use for recreation, while the descendants of those NA families still probably live on Red Lake Reservation in poverty. Guilt? Probably to some degree, but on my part more so awareness to try to help it not happen again on my behalf.

I have a family history of slavery (we're Carribean on one side a few generations back and my great x whatever grandmother escaped). It's pretty sucky, obviously, but nothing to do with me or anyone else alive today.

mynameisuntz

My point is that it's the responsibility of the individual, not the tax payer.

I understand the sentiment, and I'd agree with it in an ideal society, but I'd rather protect the unborn child from having to be born to irresponsible parents who are not equipped to provide.

Just personal belief.

RebeccaS

mynameisuntz said:

My point is that it's the responsibility of the individual, not the tax payer.

I understand the sentiment, and I'd agree with it in an ideal society, but I'd rather protect the unborn child from having to be born to irresponsible parents who are not equipped to provide.

Just personal belief.

There are plenty of charities that provide these services. They do the same job, but they're not taxpayer funded. People who believe in the cause are free to donate to them, and people who don't are free not to. My personal belief is that that's the way to go. I'm not against contraception, and I'm aware that people aren't always so smart, I just don't think the service should be provided at the expense of those who don't support it.

vinlyn

mynameisuntz said:

RebeccaS said:

You can't get pregnant with your pants on

Hey I understand. But abstinence-only sex education is an epic fail based on the statistics.

I don't think we're saying no birth control.
I don't think we're saying abstinence is workable for most people.
I don't think we're saying no sex education.

But, when it comes to keeping the government out of bedrooms, then I think we ought keep the government out of our bedrooms. They don't need to be there in terms of regulating who can marry who, or whether a man in the army can be gay, or paying for sex ed, or paying for condoms or other forms of birth control. Some things ought to be left to the private citizen...and I say that as a long-time Democrat.

Dakini

vinlyn said:

And this goes back to discussions we have had here on the forum in the past about Buddhist compassion. My own personal belief is that having compassion isn't someone saying (or thinking), "Aw, isn't that too bad", but rather someone who actually does something about the issue they are concerned about.

So start a thread on what to do about the US prison system. That's not what this thread is about. We're just answering the OP's question. If you want to start another topic, go for it!

federica

Yes, I rather think this topic has run its course.
generally, most questions can be answered within 20 posts.
This one has veered a bit.

Thanks everyone.