- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Politics
State Sen. Nina Turner Wants Regulations for Men to Get Viagra
Ohio State Sen. Nina Turner introduced a bill last week that would force any male to undergo sex therapy, get a cardiac stress test and present a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner verifying impotency in order to get a prescription for any erectile dysfunction drug, such as Viagra.
According to the Dayton Daily News, Sen. Turner’s bill was in response to the 'Heartbeat Bill' introduced in the Ohio House by Republican Lynn Wachtmann, which would ban abortion once a heartbeat is detected, as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.
Sen. Turner told Bloomberg News: “If we are going to be in the business as policy makers of regulating sexual health or medical health, then we should do it across the board. We should be equal opportunity in that.”
She added: “Even the FDA recommends that doctors make sure that assessments are taken that target the nature of the symptoms, whether it’s physical or psychological. I certainly want to stand up for men’s health and take this seriously and legislate it the same way mostly men say they want to legislate a woman’s womb.”
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Really awesome details told
Really awesome details told us , really appreciate it, i think it will be one of the best guide for many looking for General The blue pill which is one of the best alternatives available for impotence, and men all over the community can advantage from its benefits.http://www.dtdpharmacy.com/
I wonder how you got so good.
I wonder how you got so good. This is really a fascinating blog, lots of stuff that I can get into. One thing I just want to say is that your Blog is so perfect! Generic Viagra Cheap Generic Viagra Kamagra Cialis
Thanks for an incredible
Thanks for an incredible publish, would research a person's others articles. thanks for your opinions for this, I knowledgeable somewhat reach by this textual articles. Thanks again! You generate an excellent time. Has excellent review here. I think that when more people believed of it like that, they would use a better time acquire the carry ofing the problems.
http://www.dtdpharmacy.com/
It is the best guideline for
It is the best guideline for many peoples all over the world looking to know more about the generic viagra.Thanks for the post.
http://www.safegenericmeds.com
No, we should suspect any
No, we should suspect any account that was written second or third-hand. Given your ID, that should be obvious to you. Do you believe the stories about Paul Bunyan?
IN the case of the Gallic wars, there are contemporary accounts that confirm that of Caesar's. If your comprehension deficit was not to huge you would have noted I said there is not a single contemporary mention of any jesus. Tacticus wrote his account long after Mark's, so you simply confirm what I said.
Also, Flavius Josephus wrote long after the fact. Look those up and stop flouting your own stupidity.
Show me even one written before 40 CE. Show me one mention in the Roman records or even a personal letter written during that time. Your claim is a typical theist lie.
Within 100 years is not contemporary. None of these people were eye witnesses or even alive during that time.
You're a perfect example of the determined ignorance of theists.
Don't get me wrong on this. I
Don't get me wrong on this. I DO love my enemies. But this person, "Ohio State Sen. Nina Turner", has an agenda that goes far beyond being a personal enemy of mine.
I smell in her moronic, evil rhetoric, the foul stench of callous disregard for the human right, not to be slaughtered for the convenience of somebody else, of any and every unborn child on the planet, each of whom is simply trying to stay alive, and to get born when the time comes, in his or HER mother's womb, which ought to be a safe place to be.
I am proud to say that I HATE people like her, even more than I hate soldiers who run amok killing civilians including babies in Afghanistan, or anywhere else. Actually, I hate people like her MORE than I hate soldiers who massacre civilians. At least civilians who have learnt to walk, or to pick things up, stand a chance of running away, or overpowering their would-be assassins. What chance do the babies she wants killed with impunity stand? None!
I am outraged, not by the stupidity of the Bill she has introduced, which made me laugh out loud, before I discovered WHY she is introducing such a stupid Bill and got angry, but by her disgusting rationale for introducing the Bill.
There isn't an industry I hate more than I hate the abortion industry. Slavery and people trafficking (yes, they still exists) are bad. The arms trade is bad. The mental health industry is bad. The two mind-altering drugs industries are bad - both street drugs that people choose to buy (not all that bad), and prescription psychiatric drugs that people are forced to take (appalling). Sexploitation is bad. And so on.
But none of these come close, in terms of pure evil, to the abortion industry. I would rather a daughter of mine married an arms dealer, a slave trader, or a pornographer, a salesman for anti-psychotic medications, or a dealer in heroin or crack cocaine, or a psychiatrist who deprived people of their liberty without charge or trial, than that she sunk so low as to marry somebody who trained in medicine for years, only to abuse his talents and qualifications, by killing innocent unborn children, for profit.
I defy ANYBODY on this message board, to come up with one single rational, moral, scientific argument, in favour of abortion. There isn't one!
God help me, I am SO angry about this utter wickedness.
I agree.
I agree.
How can you be proud to say
How can you be proud to say that you hate someone? To say you hate abortion because you believe it's murder is fine, but to say you're proud to hate someone calls your own integrity into question, at the very least. I wouldn't recommend using the Bible to defend your pride in that position...
He may say what he chooses
He may say what he chooses to.
Whatever. I was feeling
Whatever. I was feeling emotional. Don't you ever simply HATE certain people, when you think about the cruel things they've done? I mean, for example, Josef Mengele, or Pol Pot, or King Herod? If not, you are unusually forgiving, perhaps too forgiving, some might say.
Wow, you are really arrogant
Wow, you are really arrogant in your beliefs. If you do not believe in abortion, don't have one. Don't tell me that I cannot. Your argument is based only upon religious beliefs.
How about when an abortion is necessary to save the life of a woman? Then she may be able to have other children later. How about when the fetus is so hopelessly malformed that it will only have a short life of pain and distress? But the pain and distress of others means nothing to you as long as your sick, twisted beliefs are followed.
There isn't anything that disgusts me more than the arrogance, hypocrisy, and lack of compassion of religion.
BTW, there is no god, just a collection of myths and lies. I can prove it. What can you prove?
It seems like you are trying
It seems like you are trying to push your nasty values on others. Some people feel that it is wrong to kill a human just for convenience. Because it is. I bet you disgust me more than he disgusts you. So suck it up!
You can PROVE that there's no
You can PROVE that there's no god? I'd like to see that proof. And I know anti-abortion people who aren't religious - they just happen to believe that aborting a baby is murder.
Yes, I can prove it. Where
Yes, I can prove it. Where is this god? Why hasn't he ended all discussion by giving unequivocal proof of his (or its) existence? If I ever saw such proof, I would change my position on this. The lack of anyone ever trying to show proof is evidence that even they know it's all a lie. I can also show that much of the bible is outright fabrication. For example, no jesus ever existed. There isn't a single contemporary account of any jesus. The first mention is in the gospel of Mark, written from 40 to 100 years after jesus was supposed to have lived.
The Romans, who otherwise kept very good records make no mention of someone that was supposed to have had such influence. socially, politically, and religiously. There's not a word about him in either official documents or surviving private letters.
Then look up Horus, Attis, Krishna, and Mithra. You'll see from where the jesus myth was stolen.
Essentially, the bible is a badly-translated, politically edited, collections of myths and lies.
Yes, there are a few verifiable mentions of historical places and events. That doesn't mean the rest of it is true. Here's a modenr example:
On the 11th of September, 2001, two commercial aircraft flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing thousands.
Some people believe that this was an act of terrorism by an Islamic fundamentalist organization.
It was really the power of my god (he who must not be named) directing those planes to warn the people of the USA and the world to abandon their wicked ways and praise the only true god.
The first sentence is unquestionable historic fact. The last sentence is a delusional lie but is impossible to prove to be false. The “truth” of all “holy books” is based upon this same technique.
Why are there so many claims of a god, each far different from the others and based upon the peculiarities of each culture?
Why is the christian god so contradictory? On one hand, preaching peace and love and on the other committing genocide, and demanding murders and human sacrifices.
Read your bible as if you had never heard of it and try to be objective. You'll see how ludicrous it all is.
Those making the outrageous claims also have the burden of proof. I've been asking for such proof for over 50 years. Not once have I seen any. Nor do I expect any. The more I learn, the more I know it's all BS. Yes, "The truth shall set you free."
Let me see if I have this
Let me see if I have this straight. Mark's account of Jesus' life is false because it was written 40-100 years after Jesus had lived? Should we then discount any historical documentation of an event or person's life because it is written too long after the fact. Ceasar's account of the Galic wars was written 900 years after the fact and his account is accepted as historically accurate, even though the volume of manuscript authority is minute.
You are false in your claim that the Romans make no mention of Jesus as well. The fact is that there are plenty of external sources to the Bible that support the claim that Jesus lived.
Tacitus, a Roman historian and Senator, spoke of Jesus in the Annals.
Flavius Josephus, a Jew and a Roman, mentions Jesus in his writings as well.
These writings I have mentioned are within 100 years of Christ's death. There are other historians who mention Jesus as well.
If you sincerely research the historicity of Jesus' life, you will find more manuscript authority supporting the claims of the Bible than any other literary work ever written.
- The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.-
This pair of comments is a
This pair of comments is a great example of the problem with the political issue of abortion and several others. John addressed the general case and said nothing of the edge cases; it's unreasonable to infer what his opinion is on those without asking him. James apparently believes the edge cases justify the general case and ignored it. Neither side is talking about the same thing. And this has gone on for so long that politicians have begun staging propaganda stunts like this in place of argument.
Each side defines the question in different terms and refuses to use the other side's terms. There seems to be no actual debate, just a yelling-over contest to define the question. We actually have two questions that need to be answered, but most seem to consider them mutually exclusive.
You appear to have criticised
You appear to have criticised both me (a human rights activist in an entirely different sphere, but who also happens to feel strongly about the frequent violation nowadays of the human right to life of human organisms who aren't yet ready to be born), and Jim (who seems to be on a mission against religion, and therefore invents religious motivations in others, so that he can work up anger against those others, for allegedly having the religious motivations he attributes to them).
I find your equivocal response interesting enough to want to ask you to try to rephrase it, so that I can understand it better.
I think, by "edge cases", you are referring to the extremely rare occasions when abortion is obviously medically necessary, for example because continuing with a pregnancy would likely be lethal for both mother and child, or when a foetus has a lethal abnormality that would cause him or her to suffer an agonising death soon after birth. I don't think there are many pro-lifers so fundamentalist in their pro-life views that would want to legislate against abortion in such unusual cases, and I'm certainly not one of them.
But what did you actually mean, when you wrote, "Each side defines the question in different terms and refuses to use the other side's terms."?
I have said nothing about
I have said nothing about religion in this thread.
No one said you did. Your
No one said you did. Your views make it clear where you stand , though. One cannot hide that level of delusions.
I don't understand what you
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
I am certain that you don't.
I am certain that you don't. Understanding anything that is not your personal viewpoint is well beyond you. That could mean that you might have to recognize (gasp) facts! Even worse, you might have to accept rational thinking. Either of those is always fatal to any religion-based views. Are you trying to fool anyone into thinking your views are anything more than based upon religion?
Don't project your own intellectual failings on anyone else. Not everyone is as willfully ignorant as theists.
What is "rational" about the
What is "rational" about the "thinking" of a man who cannot debate, only insult, and who is so obsessed with "religion", that he imagines religious motivations in others at every opportunity?
My views on abortion are based squarely upon my knowledge of the "facts", of what abortion IS, coupled with a respect for other human beings that you seem to lack.
What have "theists" got to do with this discussion?
The problem is, no one wants
The problem is, no one wants the government to intervene in their sex or health life. They do want the government to intervene in everyone else's.
Can you name one single
Can you name one single person who wants the government to interfere in the sex lives of every other person apart from them? No? I thought not.
Yes, I can. Too bad you are
Yes, I can. Too bad you are determined to ignore obvious facts. When the government allows religious-based laws about birth control, sex, abortion, or anything else, they are interfering in the lives of everyone except the people who want those things to apply to the entire world regardless of their personal stance on them.
Tell me, did you take courses in how to be willfully ignorant or does it come naturally to you?
Go on then, name somebody who
Go on then, name somebody who wants the government to intervene in everyone else's sex life. You said you could, but you didn't get around to it.
Instead, you started ranting about "religious-based laws". Nina Turner is in the USA. They don't have many religious-based laws in the USA, do they?
You want me to name several
You want me to name several million people? YOu ignore the most obvious facts so you can continue to spout your obnoxious beliefs.
They have many religious-based laws in the USA. Only a determinedly ignorant person would believe otherwise. Any Sunday "blue Law", of which there are thousands, can be anything else.
Religion has always received a free ride on taxes, obeying the same laws as everyone else and ignoring anything they please.
Are you really that stupid, or are you just playing dumb to continue to be as irritating as possible?
I am not "playing dumb". I
I am not "playing dumb". I am a native, citizen and resident of a country other than the USA. It is unfair of you to expect me to be able to win a trivia pub quiz about daft American laws, so to speak. What is a "blue law", please? Is it necessary for me to know what a "blue law" is, in order to express "opposing views" about what looks to me like a publicity stunt on the part of somebody who is in favour of allowing the abortion industry free reign, which got me annoyed a few nights ago?
The point of Opposing Views must surely be to foster discussion of their opposing views, between people who have opposing views. Accusing me, as you did, of wanting to "spout" my "obnoxious beliefs" (potentially referring the beliefs of mine or of others that you tend to invent from time to time, a debating tactic known as "straw man") isn't really a sound substitute for expressing a view that opposes mine, and arguing rationally why readers ought to decide that their views ought to become closer to yours than to mine.
I don't want you to "name several million people". I asked you to name ONE person who ... did ... whatever it was you said a lot of people did ... something I didn't think anybody much did ... whatever it was ...
Why do you keep mentioning "religion" in your posts, almost regardless of what the topic is? Are you some kind of fundamentalist?