The Wealthy State of Women's Health

THE FOLLOWING IS REPOSTED FROM A DISCUSSION ON FACEBOOK. I DID NOT PUBLISH ALL COMMENTS IN THEIR ENTIRETY, NOT FOR FEAR OF DISSENSION, BUT RATHER OTHER COMMENTS WENT SO FAR AFIELD I DIDN’T CARE TO INCLUDE THEM. THANKS FOR READING!

CHRISTIAN MICHAEL

I’m not much apprised on the recent Limbaugh hoo-ha other than that he called/implied a girl was a slut because she wanted the state to fund birth control for the sake of women’s health. (See article that spawned my post.) What bothers me isn’t that a radio opinionist gave anĀ inciting opinion, but first that anyone would think that the state must be involved for women to be healthy? Shouldn’t that be our first concern? Can’t women take care of their own health? Do they need everyone else’s taxes to go to their gender-specific benefit? What would happen if the state suddenly failed and they couldn’t spend everyone else’s money on “free” services? Would the female populace suddenly die from unregulated periods? I’m a little confused. Since when was the state necessary for human survival? Or am I seeing something everyone else is ignoring? I’m so going to blog about this.

FRIEND 01:

“So let me ask you this, then, should the state fund medical treatments for non gender specific illnesses? I only ask because I’m one of the people that need birthcontrol to keep my health in check. It does more than just ‘regulate periods’. I have PCOS which causes an excess of androgen in my system. without the birth control to balance ou the hormones, I will end up with diabetes, endometrian cancer, cervical cancer, cardiovascular disease, heart disease or any number of horrific diseases in a long long list. I can’t help it I’m a woman and I’m the only gender who can end up with this disorder. however, if I didn’t have appropriate medical coverage to take care of it, I would hope that I could get hlep somewhere so I don’t leave my children motherless at a young age. Not to mention the fact that men can’t get pregnant. They can however have a condom break and get some woman pregnant and abandon her and the kid and leave her to foot the bill for the next 18 years all alone. Condoms aren’t 100% fool proof and neither is birthcontrol but together your odds of an unwanted pregnancy improve. If you can’t afford medical insurance, you certainly can’t afford a kid. The gov providing birth control keeps children from being abandoned in dumpsters, children starving from neglect because parents can’t afford to feed them, families being on welfare. I haven’t done the research, but I can bet that the gov cost to feed a family of three is far less than to provide birth control to one mother.”

CHRISTIAN MICHAEL

So, are you saying that without government, humanity would die in the ravages of terrible men who impregnate women who then can’t afford to feed offspring and civilization ends? Okay, so that’s a bit colorful, and I don’t think you would say that, but let’s put this into perspective.

1) Life isn’t fair. And while people can always treat each other better, I don’t believe the government is the best way to accomplish an improvement in how people help each other.

2) There are lots of bad things in life. The government can’t save us from them. And the moment we give it the power to save us from life, we give it the immediate power to take our lives from us, and I don’t think that’s a fair trade.

3) Spending other people’s money who could be spending that money on their own health and that of their families isn’t acceptable. “What’s good for everyone,” can’t apply to 400,000,000 unique individuals living in the United States. I don’t trust the Government can provide what I can best choose for myself, and if we all had less taxes taken out of our paychecks and less govt regulations jacking up prices, and heavy currency inflation caused by the Fed, we’d have the money for things we need, such as women for regulatory birth control and men with condoms.

4) Our dependence on government for things that women need shows a severe disconnect of cultural masculinity, and while many want our government to step up where men have failed, it actually will only encourage men to care less. Humans are always prone to stop stepping up when others promise to do it for them. If we want men to get more involved, we have to remove other securities. Maybe it will encourage women to take better care who they sleep with, and encourage those who chose poorly the first time to demand more of the men they’re with. It will also create an environment where men can feel more useful, because in a feminist world where “women don’t need men,” men stop acting like men.

///

lipstick womanI received no comment from my friend after this, but I don’t imply she was unafraid or unwilling to discuss this with me. If anything, I can tell you she’s not afraid! She’s a mother of several boys! Good friend.

Ultimately, I want women and men alike to have as every healthy an opportunity to take care of themselves so they can be there for their loved ones and to enjoy life! I want them to be happy and fulfilled. But I cannot in good conscience justify theft, overt state control, and loss of my financial freedom due to higher taxes and regulations under the guise that “we’re saving women from the reality of their gender.”


Life sucks, folks. We can’t make it more sucky for other people by stealing their hard-earned money so your life can be less sucky. It may not be fair that women have more medical needs than men, but we can’t make it less fair by simply making something else more unfair.

And as a free man, I will do everything in my power to help my friends see through the tough times and stick around as long as possible. After all, I haven’t been to all the Hard Rock Cafes and I’d like some awesome people, like my friend above, to come with me. But I won’t take money from a single father in Portland, OR, raising three kids a year to fund free birth control that nearly all responsible married or single women can afford at a local drugstore. We cannot steal from Peter to pay for Paul and say that it is justified because now Paul has a better chance at life.

Peter and Paul had an equally good chance at life at the moment of conception. Everything after that is a playing field of reality and the God who created it. I do not scorn or discourage those who would seek to diminish the threats life brings us, but we cannot do so at the cost of other people’s freedoms! However good a purpose or hope, doing anything but gathering voluntary support is called FORCE, and under no auspice did God approve of such force. Not even among his own people. He called believers to be the good themselves, not to pass the buck to a brainless bureaucracy. And the moment we shift that power from our hands to those above us, we create an opportunity for evil men to deceive their way into power and then use that against us.

All in all, I simply don’t feel that’s a fair trade. Make of that what you want, but I’d prefer liberty AND death, than slavery.