Comments for MANSIZEDTARGET.COM

Comment on Planned Parenthood Brouhaha by Glaivester

Glaivester — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:59:12 +0000

I mean helps make birth control available to those who would have trouble buying it (not necessarily in the U.S., possibly abroad).

Comment on Planned Parenthood Brouhaha by Tschafer

Tschafer — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:06:23 +0000

In answer to Glaivester’s question, I suppose that it depends on what you mean by “promoting” birth control. Insofar as there are organizations that favor birth control being legal and available, but are anti-abortion (which seems to be the position of most Americans), yes, there are a number of such – I believe that this is the position of several majo Protestant Right-To-Life organizations. If by “promoting” you mean “advocating birth control as a positive good to be used by everyone due to population issues, or ‘womyn’s empowerment’” or some such malarky, no, I don’t know of any. I suppose that this is because such people are fanatics, and fanatics always tend to go to extremes.

Comment on Planned Parenthood Brouhaha by UnPC

UnPC — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:50:28 +0000

I would just tell anyone collecting on behalf of the Komen Foundation that you are not donating because apparently they have too much money since they have resorted to giving away funds, supposedly raised to fight breast cancer, to unrelated groups. Or was it because breast cancer has been cured? Either way they don’t appear to need your money.

Comment on Planned Parenthood Brouhaha by The Continental Op

The Continental Op — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:31:49 +0000

“Does anyone know if there is any organization that promotes birth control but not abortion?”

And free sex. Three legs of the stool.

Comment on Planned Parenthood Brouhaha by mistergister

mistergister — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:10:26 +0000

I will be in the same laugh track. I was surprised at the revelation about the Komen groups support to that horrible group. I am also surprised how much the “pro-choice” crowd can vilify the people that choose to have opposite feelings. The onslaught of senators that jumped to the defense of Planned Parenthood shows the sad direction of future Gov’t morons. I do not feel that a charity organization that gets there money purely form donations should have to feel any pressure from the Gov’t.
I also wonder that during the week of interrupted funding from the Komen fund (PP did not lose any money during that time)the money that PP did recieve (close if not more than $1 million) will be returned. Otherwise, PP can just keep coming up with negative claims against charitable groups and cash in from the sick sympathies. In essence they can double… triple dip!

Comment on Planned Parenthood Brouhaha by Glaivester

Glaivester — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:03:18 +0000

Does anyone know if there is any organization that promotes birth control but not abortion?

Comment on Feminism, Conservatism, “Game,” and Radical Traditionalism by onetinyvalkyrie

onetinyvalkyrie — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:29:44 +0000

You strike a good balance in this article, by taking what’s relevant from Roissy while also standing up for better values than what the “game” movement advocates.

Comment on Planned Parenthood Brouhaha by Steve Nicoloso

Steve Nicoloso — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:08:50 +0000

Score one for Team Woman™.

Comment on Obama vs. the Catholic Church by David M.

David M. — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:45:28 +0000

Right, so now that there’s a government-run soup kitchen serving pork open down the street, shutting down the Jewish soup kitchen isn’t forcing them to act contrary to their beliefs, because hey, now everyone can just get fed down the street at the government-run place.

I will give you some credit though, you don’t try to hide the real intent and end result of Obama-care, which is the complete government take-over of health care.

Comment on Obama vs. the Catholic Church by dougindeap

dougindeap — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:55:39 +0000

Okay, let’s try this another way–one that may appeal to your small government ideas.

Our laws have long made health plans available to most people in the form of “employee benefits” received through their employers. Apart from political expediency, employers really did not need to be involved at all, but since the law put them in that position, they effectively have had a say in what types of plans are available to their employees. Some employers have even taken advantage of their position to tailor the plans they make available to fit their own religious views, rather than leave such matters to their employees.

Now that the government has prescribed that health plans provide some services that do not conform to the religious views of some employers, those employers have complained they face a moral bind–that is they are forced to provide plans that include services they find objectionable. This moral bind could have been avoided if the law had not required employers to provide such qualifying health plans and, instead, simply made such plans readily and directly available to everyone, funding them, at least partly, through taxes or assessments paid by employers relieved of the burden of providing health plans. Had the government done that, employers would not face a moral bind and health plans would be widely available as the law intends.

Oh. Wait. Does the current health law afford employers that very option? Why, yes, it does. http://pnhp.org/blog/2011/03/15/employer-sponsored-health-plans-under-the-affordable-care-act/ Eureka! No moral bind! (And the assessments, by the way, are hardly prohibitive as some commentators suppose. Some employers, indeed, are considering that option on the basis that it is economically advantageous.)

Problem solved–except perhaps for an employer who really desires not just to avoid a moral bind, but rather wants to retain control of his employees’ health plans, limit their choices to conform to the employer’s religious beliefs, and avoid paying the assessments that otherwise would be owed. For that, the employer would need an exemption from the law.

Oh. Wait. Aren’t some employers clamoring for just such an exemption, so they can do just that? Why, yes, they are.