ONTD Political

Viagra: "The Drug for Life"

12:52 am - 05/02/2012
Minnesota Senator Who Sponsored Vetoed Anti-Abortion Pill Bill Calls Viagra A ‘Drug For Life’

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D) has vetoed an anti-abortion bill that would have required a doctor to be present for a woman to take the abortion-inducing drug RU-486, effectively banning “tele-med” abortions and disproportionately affecting women in rural communities. Dayton wrote in his veto letter that patient safety should always be a concern, but “a veto is warranted on legislation because it is driven by a specific political ideology rather than a broad-based concern for protecting all patients.”

Indeed, during debate about the legislation, a Democratic state senator asked why RU-486 should be regulated instead of erectile dysfunction medication. Sen. Paul Gazelka (R), the bill’s sponsor, said Viagra is a “wonderful drug” that “helps create life.” RH Reality Check’s Robin Marty asked Gazelka to clarify his comments about Viagra, and he said in response:

"comparing Viagra to RU-486 was comparing apples and oranges or more like comparing life and death. Viagra is a wonderful medical advancement in that can help couples with sexual disfunction issues…it can even help in producing life. RU486 always destroys life by taking the life of the unborn child."

Gazelka did not respond to Marty’s questions about whether he would sponsor a bill to collect information about men who are prescribed Viagra, similar to “databases created in various other states to gather information on women who obtain abortions.”

Gazelka’s bill and his ensuing comments about Viagra highlight the unfair burden placed on women who seek abortions and related health care. State regulations continue to add additional hurdles women must overcome to access abortions and contraception, while no similar measures block the availably of Viagra for men.

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/01/474419/minnesota-state-senator-abortion-viagra/
cpsings4him 2nd-May-2012 11:26 am (UTC)
I'll bet he'd be singing a different tune if it were men who carried pregnancies and HIS body in question. RAAAAAAGEEEE!!!!
cpsings4him 2nd-May-2012 11:59 am (UTC)
Is this a real question? Not sure if trolling or just...whatever.
cpsings4him 2nd-May-2012 12:08 pm (UTC)
Although I think you're actually just trolling, I will answer the question. The point is, he can never personally become pregnant. Therefore, he lacks the proper prospective from which to appreciate the complete implications of becoming so. All I'm saying is that if it were his body in question, he would likely feel differently.
cpsings4him 2nd-May-2012 12:17 pm (UTC)
Yep, you've converted me. Now move along.
yeats 2nd-May-2012 01:46 pm (UTC)
But if you accept that then it is also true that if it were not your body YOUR perspective might be different. The implication, of course, is that it might be easier for some people to tell others what to do with what is their than to allow someone to tell you what to do with what is yours.

no, but thanks for trying -- the implication is that people who aren't in female bodies/bodies that can be pregnant should fucking listen to those people who are.
fornikate 2nd-May-2012 02:30 pm (UTC)
no1curr
darsynia 2nd-May-2012 04:03 pm (UTC)
I don't know if you really want to make this argument. If I were a well-off white male, yeah, I probably would have a different perspective, because I would be privileged enough to not have to deal with the issues women have to deal with, nor would I have to worry about balancing my sexual desires with the desire not to get pregnant.

Arguing that of course our perspectives would change if our circumstances did doesn't really diminish the point that other posters are making, IMO. They're saying that the lawmaker's privilege and lack of perspective leads him to an opinion that doesn't place enough value on body autonomy. If I were in his shoes, the same privilege and lack of perspective could, quite possibly, lead me to the same opinions. It doesn't take away the fact that the opinions he holds about this issue devalues women's body autonomy.
the_axel 2nd-May-2012 05:49 pm (UTC)
It's even simpler than that.
Take Rick Santorum as a case study in hard-line anti-choice politicians.
As soon as his wife will die if she doesn't have an abortion, he's all in favour of them.
mylaptopisevil 3rd-May-2012 04:49 am (UTC)
conservatalk getting mightly lonely now that all the people you treated in a manner similar to this thread decided to just ignore you, huh.
ladypolitik 2nd-May-2012 12:15 pm (UTC)
Is this a real question?


Nah,not likely.

In any case, be sure to have an extra cushion for your lower back; 80% chance you're going to have a sub-thread that's long enough to run right off the right-hand side of the page.
cpsings4him 2nd-May-2012 12:17 pm (UTC)
Yeah. Deliberate obtuseness is just no fun.
ladypolitik 2nd-May-2012 05:14 pm (UTC)
Huh! Well, I thank you, panookah, for sharing your life story with us.

Edited at 2012-05-02 05:17 pm (UTC)
spiffynamehere 2nd-May-2012 07:07 pm (UTC)
Yeah, he's generally trolling.
teacoat 2nd-May-2012 05:15 pm (UTC)
Probably, but cpsings4him isn't trying to tell male politicians from Minnesota what they can do with their bodies.
the_axel 2nd-May-2012 05:48 pm (UTC)
Take Rick Santorum as an example.
A staunch Catholic conservative Republican.
Absolutely 100% anti-abortion.

Except when his wife would die if she didn't have one.
hinoema 3rd-May-2012 04:57 am (UTC)
If pregnancy went from being "something a woman does" to being, for a man, "a potentially life threatening, seriously painful event that is used as an excuse to limit your rights, ability and self autonomy", then yeah, different tune. Did you really not know that or are you being purposefully dense?
hinoema 3rd-May-2012 07:25 am (UTC)
Like I said, I get that part of it. What I don't get is why it is a valid argument.

It's a valid argument because RU-84 can prevent the possibility of pregnancies that can, when unplanned, cause anything from severe financial hardship to employment hardship, massive medical bills or loss of life; all Viagra can do is stiffen the willie, with no regard to whether that sex to be had is responsible. Therefore, the argument that Viagra is somehow morally sanctionable and that RU-84 is well nigh criminal is jsut so much moralizing and horseshit.
This page was loaded Sep 3rd 2014, 7:12 am GMT.