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/
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.
hinoema 3rd-May-2012 07:46 am (UTC)
Ok, which argument did you think was insufficient? Then I can adress that specifically.
hinoema 3rd-May-2012 07:59 am (UTC)
I see. Well, saying something like 'if you could see that from my point of view, you'd think differently' isn't an actual *argument*, you see. It's more of a strong comment saying that some more empathy, compassion ad general humanity in regards to this situation could be a good thing, don't you think?

It highlights the footing from which the actual arguments are made, showing that if the person claiming to be able to decide if said options *are* morally and ethically right for women does so from this position of little to no empathy or understanding, then their judgment may well be suspect.
hinoema 3rd-May-2012 08:03 am (UTC)
Thanks! And I'd wager that's close to what cpsingsforhim had in mind.

Edited at 2012-05-03 08:04 am (UTC)
cpsings4him 4th-May-2012 11:41 am (UTC)
Yes. That was my point exactly.
This page was loaded Aug 22nd 2014, 4:09 am GMT.