Kentucky lawmaker’s bill forces men to get note from wives before purchasing Viagra

[dank69]

This is like saying that politicians are unqualified to make any decisions about healthcare if they don't personally need that care. This is why they should source studies, advisors etc, not have to rely entirely on personal experience.

No. As gender balance in legislatures increases, my concern is lessened. This is only about a primarily male legislature crafting laws only affecting female reproductive rights.

 

[dank69]

Thankfully you don't need a particular set of reproductive organs to reject the ludicrous idea that allowing self-described "humiliation" determine what is proper basis for law. What next, "Oh, having to tell the IRS how much I make is so humiliating, so I shouldn't have to pay taxes"?

Again, if you failed at a basic and simple adult responsibility like managing your own sex life and/or birth control, then hell yes you deserve a bit of humiliation when you seek to kill the fetus to "take responsibility" for your fuckup. Hopefully then you won't continue to be a fuckup who needs to kill more fetuses.

How nice it must be to live in a world so black and white. Take an example where a couple is married and get pregnant on purpose. Then a couple months into the pregnancy the father leaves for whatever reason and cannot be found for child support. Let's also say the woman cannot afford to raise a child on her own so she wants to do the responsible thing and get an abortion. Let's add humiliation on top of her troubles because Glenn says she's a fuckup.

It must also be nice to have never made a serious mistake in your life.

 

[Exophase]

No. As gender balance in legislatures increases, my concern is lessened. This is only about a primarily male legislature crafting laws only affecting female reproductive rights.

I still don't really understand your argument. Members of legislature are with a few exceptions well off financially so should they not be allowed to make laws only affecting poor people? Or laws only affecting people that are far wealthier than most of them?

What is it that specifically requires women to make good laws that only concern women or men to make good laws that only concern men? What determines this qualification? An ethical standard or is it based on anything empirical?

I would not be less concerned with predominantly female legislators making the same laws to try to soft-prohibit abortion that the predominantly male legislators are currently making. Not in the least. And I'm not at all convinced that they wouldn't.

 

[dank69]

I still don't really understand your argument. Members of legislature are with a few exceptions well off financially so should they not be allowed to make laws only affecting poor people? Or laws only affecting people that are far wealthier than most of them?

What is it that specifically requires women to make good laws that only concern women or men to make good laws that only concern men? What determines this qualification? An ethical standard or is it based on anything empirical?

I would not be less concerned with predominantly female legislators making the same laws to try to soft-prohibit abortion that the predominantly male legislators are currently making. Not in the least. And I'm not at all convinced that they wouldn't.

Do you think rich lawmakers should make laws that only affect poor people negatively while leaving rich people untouched?

 

[Exophase]

Do you think rich lawmakers should make laws that only affect poor people negatively while leaving rich people untouched?

Laws should be made that are in society's best interests overall. This will not be dependent on what class the law makers are part of. Sometimes such laws will affect some groups more than others. Sometimes this is an unavoidable consequence.

BTW, I think you're totally wrong when you say that laws that inhibit or restrict abortion only hurt women. Men are also hurt if they have to support children where they favored an abortion along with the mother. People should really stop posing abortion as a matter that is 100% only about women's bodily autonomy and comfort.

 

[dank69]

Laws should be made that are in society's best interests overall. This will not be dependent on what class the law makers are part of. Sometimes such laws will affect some groups more than others. Sometimes this is an unavoidable consequence.

We aren't talking about side effects, we are talking about legislation crafted specifically to "humiliate" human beings by people who will never be subjected to said humiliation.

BTW, I think you're totally wrong when you say that laws that inhibit or restrict abortion only hurt women. Men are also hurt if they have to support children where they favored an abortion along with the mother. People should really stop posing abortion as a matter that is 100% only about women's bodily autonomy and comfort.

Oh I see, you're one of those people who can't see the difference between raising a child and incubating one inside your body. You can't understand that the male opinion is 100% null and void with respect to the latter.

 

[Exophase]

We aren't talking about side effects, we are talking about legislation crafted specifically to "humiliate" human beings by people who will never be subjected to said humiliation.

I strongly oppose this kind of legislation, but it's coming from people who have the point of view that abortion is murder. Under that belief it's not surprising that they'd think it is acceptable to take sleazy measures to try to discourage people from getting them.

Once again, until people acknowledge their point of view their counter arguments are going to look facile.

Oh I see, you're one of those people who can't see the difference between raising a child and incubating one inside your body. You can't understand that the male opinion is 100% null and void with respect to the latter.

I never said anything like that.

What you've been saying repeatedly is that abortion legislation only affects women.

This legislation is clearly done with the intent to get women to change their mind about having abortions. That very much doesn't solely affect women. If a woman would have an abortion but decides not to because she's guilted or shamed out of doing it, or because she's too embarrassed to go through with the procedures, or because it's too difficult to get to a doctor who can perform it - these things are all going to hurt the man who impregnated her if he also doesn't want to have or isn't ready to have a child.

 

[MongGrel]

Make Viagra and Cialis over the counter, might kill us old guys off faster

 

[dank69]

I strongly oppose this kind of legislation, but it's coming from people who have the point of view that abortion is murder. Under that belief it's not surprising that they'd think it is acceptable to take sleazy measures to try to discourage people from getting them.

Once again, until people acknowledge their point of view their counter arguments are going to look facile.



I never said anything like that.

What you've been saying repeatedly is that abortion legislation only affects women.

This legislation is clearly done with the intent to get women to change their mind about having abortions. That very much doesn't solely affect women. If a woman would have an abortion but decides not to because she's guilted or shamed out of doing it, or because she's too embarrassed to go through with the procedures, or because it's too difficult to get to a doctor who can perform it - these things are all going to hurt the man who impregnated her if he also doesn't want to have or isn't ready to have a child.

Of course, "sleazy measures" in this case means requiring the insertion of a device into an orifice that most of the legislators don't even have.

I understand your point about a woman changing her mind affecting both parties, but I am objecting specifically to the requirement for an unnecessary invasive ultrasound. Honestly, I doubt any woman is going to change her mind about abortion because of this requirement so this legislation ends up just being punishment for using a legal service.

There is no excuse for it and only someone stupid enough to equate abortion with murder would think otherwise. By definition, murder in an unlawful killing, and abortion is not unlawful. Even the simplest definition is killing a person and the fetus is not legally a person.

 

[glenn1]

Of course, "sleazy measures" in this case means requiring the insertion of a device into an orifice that most of the legislators don't even have.

I understand your point about a woman changing her mind affecting both parties, but I am objecting specifically to the requirement for an unnecessary invasive ultrasound. Honestly, I doubt any woman is going to change her mind about abortion because of this requirement so this legislation ends up just being punishment for using a legal service.

There is no excuse for it and only someone stupid enough to equate abortion with murder would think otherwise. By definition, murder in an unlawful killing, and abortion is not unlawful. Even the simplest definition is killing a person and the fetus is not legally a person.

You keep saying that yet say immediately after that people would be "humiliated" by trifles such as an ultrasound. If it really were 'just a lump of tissue' as you say then that would be a non-factor. I certainly wouldn't give a shit if you required me to view an ultrasound of a cyst before having it removed and it certainly wouldn't humiliate me. Or perhaps you instinctively and morally know that it is most definitely an act that warrants shame, and you want to do all you can to "protect" women from feeling it. It wouldn't be "punishment" if it weren't a shameful and selfish act.

 

[Exophase]

Of course, "sleazy measures" in this case means requiring the insertion of a device into an orifice that most of the legislators don't even have.

I understand your point about a woman changing her mind affecting both parties, but I am objecting specifically to the requirement for an unnecessary invasive ultrasound. Honestly, I doubt any woman is going to change her mind about abortion because of this requirement so this legislation ends up just being punishment for using a legal service.

There is no excuse for it and only someone stupid enough to equate abortion with murder would think otherwise. By definition, murder in an unlawful killing, and abortion is not unlawful. Even the simplest definition is killing a person and the fetus is not legally a person.

I don't think there's an excuse either, but I can see why someone with their viewpoint might. And while I don't think it'll get very many people to reconsider abortions (it might some small number) they probably don't think that either. It's obvious that the intention of these measures is to make people feel guilty by showing them the fetus's signs of life, not simply to punish people for thinking about getting an abortion.

And please let's not split hairs over the semantics of "murder", an unlawful killing is merely a definition. Another is killing without reasonable justification, or a moral or ethical question. Eg, someone referring to the holocaust as murder regardless of its debatable legal status in Germany at the time.

 

[WHAMPOM]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...get-note-from-wives-before-purchasing-viagra/

Rep. Mary Lou Marzian, a Louisville Democrat, has introduced a bill that would force men who want to use erectile dysfunction drugs to jump through a series of humiliating hoops beforehand, such as visiting a doctor twice and getting notes from their wives.

“I want to protect these men from themselves,” Marzian, who is a nurse, told the Courier-Journal.

“This is about family values,” she added.

Sounds fair, though usually a man in need of viagra is not wasting it on his wife.

 

[Pulsar]

If the state passes a law saying otherwise then no its not up to her to decide. And I'd be fine with gun buyers being shown photos of shooting victims, but for equal protection reasons if you are going to make it 8 hours for them then 8 hours needs to be the requirement for abortions as well.

It takes a pretty big ego to still believe you're in the right when 4 out of 5 people tell you that you aren't. At least we have the comfort of knowing history has repeatedly sided against your myopic viewpoint and will increasingly continue to do so as more and more people become enlightened and get away from the shackles of religiously induced stupidity.

 

[pcgeek11]

Who counts as the "wife" in a gay couple?

Whoever is playing catcher.

 

[ivwshane]

You keep saying that yet say immediately after that people would be "humiliated" by trifles such as an ultrasound. If it really were 'just a lump of tissue' as you say then that would be a non-factor. I certainly wouldn't give a shit if you required me to view an ultrasound of a cyst before having it removed and it certainly wouldn't humiliate me. Or perhaps you instinctively and morally know that it is most definitely an act that warrants shame, and you want to do all you can to "protect" women from feeling it. It wouldn't be "punishment" if it weren't a shameful and selfish act.

Should government be making laws to shame people now? Should government now be determining what's moral and what's not and punish people who go against what the government has defined as moral? If so, I now understand why Righties are so scared and concerned about sharia law being implemented, they are afraid Muslims might do exactly what the Republicans have been doing.

 

[ivwshane]

Just pretend the fetuses are corporatoons and wealthy people and you'll be fine with more regulations.

When we do that is that when you will be for less regulations and the freedom to choose?

 

[PokerGuy]

It's not about favoring one's own gender. It's about making decisions for the other gender when one is unqualified to do so.

Your basic premise is that someone of one gender is "not qualified" to make decisions (laws) that impact someone of another gender. I completely disagree with that basic assumption. It simply doesn't hold water, any more than it does if you start using race or any other characteristic for such a distinction. If you go with that kind of logic, only a small particular subset of legislators would be able to create laws on any particular topic, and the distinctions would be completely arbitrary and subjective.

I do agree that these attempts to dissuade / ban a perfectly legal activity by attempting to add layers of punishment/humiliation/shame is completely wrong, regardless of who is creating the legislation.

 

[dank69]

Your basic premise is that someone of one gender is "not qualified" to make decisions (laws) that impact someone of another gender. I completely disagree with that basic assumption. It simply doesn't hold water, any more than it does if you start using race or any other characteristic for such a distinction. If you go with that kind of logic, only a small particular subset of legislators would be able to create laws on any particular topic, and the distinctions would be completely arbitrary and subjective.

I do agree that these attempts to dissuade / ban a perfectly legal activity by attempting to add layers of punishment/humiliation/shame is completely wrong, regardless of who is creating the legislation.

No, that is a complete distortion of my premise. My basic premise is that someone of one gender is not qualified to make decisions (laws) specifically to impact the other gender in ways that will never impact their own gender.

 

[CitizenKain]

You keep saying that yet say immediately after that people would be "humiliated" by trifles such as an ultrasound. If it really were 'just a lump of tissue' as you say then that would be a non-factor. I certainly wouldn't give a shit if you required me to view an ultrasound of a cyst before having it removed and it certainly wouldn't humiliate me. Or perhaps you instinctively and morally know that it is most definitely an act that warrants shame, and you want to do all you can to "protect" women from feeling it. It wouldn't be "punishment" if it weren't a shameful and selfish act.

That probably depends on how far up your ass they have to shove the ultrasound wand.

 

[ElFenix]

"...has introduced a bill that would force men who want to use erectile dysfunction drugs to jump through a series of humiliating hoops beforehand, such as visiting a doctor twice and getting notes from their wives." What the hell is going on? I'm in shock, where is the world going? Since when does a man have to go through this humiliating ordeal to start treatment? I just don't understand. All men's rights are violated here. It's good that I take the and I don't have to do anything. I just go ahead and order these pills from Germany.

whoosh

edit: or maybe it's parroty

 

[ch33zw1z]

"...has introduced a bill that would force men who want to use erectile dysfunction drugs to jump through a series of humiliating hoops beforehand, such as visiting a doctor twice and getting notes from their wives." What the hell is going on? I'm in shock, where is the world going? Since when does a man have to go through this humiliating ordeal to start treatment? I just don't understand. All men's rights are violated here. It's good that I take the and I don't have to do anything. I just go ahead and order these pills from Germany.

LoL.....

 

[shortylickens]

Who counts as the "wife" in a gay couple?

The person not asking for viagara?

 

[shortylickens]

"...has introduced a bill that would force men who want to use erectile dysfunction drugs to jump through a series of humiliating hoops beforehand, such as visiting a doctor twice and getting notes from their wives." What the hell is going on? I'm in shock, where is the world going? Since when does a man have to go through this humiliating ordeal to start treatment? I just don't understand. All men's rights are violated here. It's good that I take the and I don't have to do anything. I just go ahead and order these pills from Germany.

This thread is 4 years old.
Why did you bump it?

 

[ch33zw1z]

This thread is 4 years old.
Why did you bump it?

I guess cause he lives in KY, has ED, and Google landed him here. Also, has no introspection.

 

[Viper1j]

Bundle it with a bill containing the usual abortion restrictions and you have a deal. None of those requirements are humiliating at all, in fact that she thinks they are just shows you that most feminists are stupid.

Really? You cool with getting a note from your wife, to buy pills to use on your girlfriend? And don't think she's not gonna count that shit!

"John, why the fuck are there two pills missing from the viagra bottle?"