Viagra And Birth Control - John McCain Can Dance
Posted: Tuesday, July 15, 2008
by Mark Parsec
Wordcasters
It was quite fascinating to hear of John McCain's response to recent questions regarding
his position on whether or not he thought it was unfair that some insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control prescriptions. Yes, John McCain, danced around the question like his pants were on fire. But, if you think about it, it really was a very good question. After all, one cannot happen without the other.
The problem is not just a matter of cost effectiveness or a question of medical necessity, as the insurance companies might argue. At stake here is the sexuality of men and women and the preferential treatment of the male gender.
One can only wonder which is more important, the ability of a man to rise to the occasion and perform sexually or the necessity of a woman to protect herself against an untimely pregnancy? Which pregnancy, strangely enough, could very well be the result of the male using Viagra. In either case, there is the deeper issue of who really has the right to enjoy sex?
For argument's sake let's just say that insurance companies should be required to pay for Viagra because the man's inability to attain an erection is deemed a medical condition, (EDD). Now, I don't know about some of these medical professionals and how they come up with the names to these conditions or how they determine whether something is a dysfunction or not, but when I was growing up they referred to that condition as OLD AGE. I could be wrong, but I believe part of the Creator's intent here was to install what might be referred to as a built in birth control system. Now, when this system is working properly, the woman doesn't have to worry about untimely pregnancies from this particular individual. Whom was, at least back in my day, referred to as a husband.
In any event, it would seem that many men in this "modern" day and age just don't want to admit or accept their anatomical limitations. This is especially true when these limitations are an indication of aging. Our masculinity is brought into question anytime there might be the slightest innuendo that we can't perform like the EverReady Bunny. And I could be wrong, but I would imagine that many senior women would feel quite relieved at the prospect that after several decades of dutiful performance to their husbands, often with little or no satisfaction of their own, that at last their husband's "manhood" has gone into retirement.
So, let's return now to John McCain's position in this discussion. The man is as old as Methuselah and if he does still have a sex life it would indubitably require the magical assistance of Viagra. Of course the man is going to think that it is o.k. for the insurance companies to pay for his enhancement medications. Add to this the obvious... the man has never had to worry a day in his life whether or not HE was going to get pregnant.
Why do some insurance companies not cover birth control medications? Because it is not politically correct. Women are supposed to get pregnant! Remember? By George, that's not a dysfunction. In fact, pregnancy is expected of a woman. Besides, if a woman gets pregnant it's her own fault. (WOW... I'd like to know how they do that one.)
Abortion is a horrible thing. What a blessed age in which we live, where medications are available that can prevent untimely pregnancies. But, no matter how you look at it, the woman is not going to be able to get pregnant without the participation of her male counterpart. What was John McCain thinking? In all fairness, allow women the right to receive equal medical coverage under the law.
This Article has been viewed 320 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)I agree that women should receive equal coverage. However, I also think the medical industry tries to prescribe too many medications for whatever reason and mainly for the sake of money. Very sad. Good article! Wouldn't it be nice if everyone would allow God to bless them instead of controlling everything themselves?I absolutely agree about the medical industry's knack for over-prescribing and wanting to build up their bank accounts. Thank you for the comments.
The Bible says that children are an inheritance from the Lord. Children are a blessing from the Lord. It also says that He is the opener and closer of the womb. Insurance companies don't mind paying for permanent birth control only temporary control. This leaves the mindset that one possibly would like to have a child in the future. That is thier election and insurance companies don't typically pay for elective treatments.
God gave everyone thier own free will. People who cut off God's will for them in thier own life concerning His timing of the blessing of children don't readily trust God's timing with this area of their life. In our society people tend to want to wait to have children but not wait to have sex.
People who normally trust God with directing thier paths should not veiw their life logically according to their own knowledge rather veiw it according to He who is omniscient. How many couples have had unplanned pregnancies just to end up glad they did?
I have a joking statement I use sometimes "I wouldn't take a million dollars for any one of my children but I wouldn't give you a dime for another one!"I am blessed with three children myself and now I regret cuting of God's hand in that area of my life. I would like to encourage everyone that if you are sexually active within the will of God then receive the blessing of children within His will also. The Lord will provide all your needs according to His riches in glory.Thank you, Richard. I would agree that our children are an inheritance from the Lord. What a blessing they truly are. Thank you for your comments.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.