|
On February 17 2012 09:27 xDaunt wrote:Why the fuck are people having cow about this? All that he's suggesting is that people be abstinent. Big deal. I wasn't going to comment on this contraceptive issue because it's so stupid, but the ignorance on the subject is too much to ignore. Here are the two fundamental points: 1. Neither Rick Santorum nor anyone else can Constitutionally ban birth control. The Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut conclusively decided this issue in the 1960s. The "right to privacy" that was created in that case is so pervasively integrated into American jurisprudence now that the case will never be overturned, even if it was decided wrongly (which as a matter of Constitutional law, I believe it was, notwithstanding that the sought-after policy was correct). Accordingly, all of this talk about banning contraception is nothing short of blatant and unapologetic fear-mongering by democrats and the left. It's really that simple. 2. Rick Santorum has not said that he'd ban contraceptives. Go do some research on what he's actually he said. He has said that he doesn't like contraceptives. He has said that they're harmful. He has said that Griswold was decided wrongly. He has said that states should be able to pass laws governing contraceptives or even banning them as a matter of states rights. But, as far as I know and can tell, I haven't seen one quote where he has said that he'd ban them. I have seen quotes where he said that he would not impose his views of contraceptives on others.
Well as far as the video it's just incredibly insulting to women (well okay, not insulting, but definitely odd and possibly degrading?). Hormonal contraception is a health issue, not just a contraceptive issue.
But you're forgetting a pretty obvious point. Santorum is the one talking about this. Santorum is the one that really wants to discuss this. He's the one talking about the morality of contraception. No one else friggin cares. Seriously, if you're claiming that it isn't part of policy, then why the hell is he talking about it as a presidential candidate? Romney answered the question beautifully "It's not an issue."
And if he wants us to discuss it, then I'll freely discuss it. Who the hell cares what Santorum thinks about the morals of sex? Seriously, who? Sex is between your partner, possibly your doctor, and whatever inanimate objects you want. Talking about sex is "special" when it's about babies? Really? I don't want a president who thinks it's his place to condemn my bedroom actions morally for no friggin' reason. It annoys me. It shows to me sexual immaturity and insecurity.
And more importantly, it shows irresponsibility. You can be as insecure as you want, but you leave that at the door when you're campaigning to be the President of the United States. This is apparently what he thinks is important. And he's not even coming at from a health perspective (which as far the health insurance goes, that's what the whole friggin' point is), so he doesn't even want to better people's lives or anything. He just thinks this is important.
Democrats aren't the ones making this an issue. Santorum is.
|
On February 17 2012 11:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 09:35 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2012 09:27 xDaunt wrote:Why the fuck are people having cow about this? All that he's suggesting is that people be abstinent. Big deal. I wasn't going to comment on this contraceptive issue because it's so stupid, but the ignorance on the subject is too much to ignore. Here are the two fundamental points: 1. Neither Rick Santorum nor anyone else can Constitutionally ban birth control. The Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut conclusively decided this issue in the 1960s. The "right to privacy" that was created in that case is so pervasively integrated into American jurisprudence now that the case will never be overturned, even if it was decided wrongly (which as a matter of Constitutional law, I believe it was, notwithstanding that the sought-after policy was correct). Accordingly, all of this talk about banning contraception is nothing short of blatant and unapologetic fear-mongering by democrats and the left. It's really that simple. 2. Rick Santorum has not said that he'd ban contraceptives. Go do some research on what he's actually he said. He has said that he doesn't like contraceptives. He has said that they're harmful. He has said that Griswold was decided wrongly. He has said that states should be able to pass laws governing contraceptives or even banning them as a matter of states rights. But, as far as I know and can tell, I haven't seen one quote where he has said that he'd ban them. I have seen quotes where he said that he would not impose his views of contraceptives on others. At the very least, he would guarantee the government was completely out of contrceptives. Funding, mandates, recommendations, everything. Correct. Generally speaking, the federal government has no business mandating to anyone that they be required to provide goods or services to a third person (this is one of the primary reasons why people oppose the anti-discrimination laws, but that's another story). Think about it this way. Guns are far more expensive than contraceptives. Should the federal government be required to purchase (or compel others to purchase) firearms for anyone who wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights? Obviously the answer is no. Freedom is about having the ability to do something, not having someone else pay for you to do something.
Your guns = contraceptives argument is flawed.
Freedom is a complex issue, it seems you only believe in negative freedom (non-interference), there is also positive freedom (providing people with freedom they wouldn't otherwise have). If you argue against universal access to contraceptives based on negative freedom, you're actually arguing against universal healthcare.
As long as their is a guarantee by the government to universal healthcare, and as long as that guarantee includes contraceptives, religious based organizations should not be allowed to deny certain services because those services are being, in part, provided by the government (based on the seperation of church and state).
Santorums views on contraception are not the views of the majority, so naturally there will be some uproar. However, while not outright banning contraception, he's still as hostile as one can get towards it. If one believes contraception is good, and one supports health insurance providing contraception, and if Santorum will do anything he can to limit the availability of contraception, then obviously Santorums views on contraception are going to, and absolutely should, factor into whether or not one is willing to vote for him.
It's probable you don't mind Santorums views on contraception because you don't believe government should be involved in handing out contraception (a reasonable belief), however, many people disagree with you and they seem to have good reason to think Santorum would prevent pro-contraceptive measurements or hinder current pro-contraceptive measurements. Just because you don't agree with these people on the issue of government involvement does not make them ignorant, they are standing up for what they believe is right.
edit: replaced some wording for clarity
|
I don't think that Santorum is making this an issue. From what I have seen, all of the comments on contraceptives are coming as responses to journalists' questions on the issue.
Even so, Santorum has talked about moral decay in the US as a national problem. Even if you disagree with his views, it's pretty hard to argue that American culture is a little bit fucked up right now, as demonstrated by increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates and the higher frequency of failures of family units. These are real problems that warrant discussion.
|
On February 17 2012 11:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 09:35 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2012 09:27 xDaunt wrote:Why the fuck are people having cow about this? All that he's suggesting is that people be abstinent. Big deal. I wasn't going to comment on this contraceptive issue because it's so stupid, but the ignorance on the subject is too much to ignore. Here are the two fundamental points: 1. Neither Rick Santorum nor anyone else can Constitutionally ban birth control. The Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut conclusively decided this issue in the 1960s. The "right to privacy" that was created in that case is so pervasively integrated into American jurisprudence now that the case will never be overturned, even if it was decided wrongly (which as a matter of Constitutional law, I believe it was, notwithstanding that the sought-after policy was correct). Accordingly, all of this talk about banning contraception is nothing short of blatant and unapologetic fear-mongering by democrats and the left. It's really that simple. 2. Rick Santorum has not said that he'd ban contraceptives. Go do some research on what he's actually he said. He has said that he doesn't like contraceptives. He has said that they're harmful. He has said that Griswold was decided wrongly. He has said that states should be able to pass laws governing contraceptives or even banning them as a matter of states rights. But, as far as I know and can tell, I haven't seen one quote where he has said that he'd ban them. I have seen quotes where he said that he would not impose his views of contraceptives on others. At the very least, he would guarantee the government was completely out of contrceptives. Funding, mandates, recommendations, everything. Correct. Generally speaking, the federal government has no business mandating to anyone that they be required to provide goods or services to a third person (this is one of the primary reasons why people oppose the anti-discrimination laws, but that's another story). Think about it this way. Guns are far more expensive than contraceptives. Should the federal government be required to purchase (or compel others to purchase) firearms for anyone who wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights? Obviously the answer is no. Freedom is about having the ability to do something, not having someone else pay for you to do something.
No, because the world isn't that black and white. A huge majority of college educated people see the benefit to contraception and education and realize the catholic perspective is close minded and ancient. Abstinence has no validity and is proven ineffective when compared to education and availability of contraception. Santorum represents a huge step backwards and there is nothing wrong with people throwing a fit about it.
|
On February 16 2012 09:22 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 09:19 1Eris1 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 16 2012 09:02 Yongwang wrote:Great video here, too bad there is no real candidate to get behind in this election to stop Obama: Yeah it was great up until the point that is started using Glenn Beck and saying things like "Obama is the worst president since Woodrow Wilson" Never realized WW was worse than Harding, the most consistentely lowest ranked President of all time by scholars =/ Wilson tried to subjugate American sovereignty by forcing us into the League of Nations against the will of the American people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
Apparently he isn't considered that bad.
|
On February 17 2012 12:33 xDaunt wrote:
I don't think that Santorum is making this an issue. From what I have seen, all of the comments on contraceptives are coming as responses to journalists' questions on the issue.
Even so, Santorum has talked about moral decay in the US as a national problem. Even if you disagree with his views, it's pretty hard to argue that American culture is a little bit fucked up right now, as demonstrated by increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates and the higher frequency of failures of family units. These are real problems that warrant discussion.
Care to elaborate on why those are signs of a fucked up culture and how you measure success of a family unit?
|
On February 17 2012 12:33 xDaunt wrote:
I don't think that Santorum is making this an issue. From what I have seen, all of the comments on contraceptives are coming as responses to journalists' questions on the issue.
Even so, Santorum has talked about moral decay in the US as a national problem. Even if you disagree with his views, it's pretty hard to argue that American culture is a little bit fucked up right now, as demonstrated by increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates and the higher frequency of failures of family units. These are real problems that warrant discussion.
Yes, and like a lot of conservatives his solutions are archaic and ridiculous.
Out-of-Wedlock birth rates would be reduced from more availability of contraception. Blatantly so. But no, he doesn't see it as a health issue, which it is. He cares about this kind of vague moral decay which apparently is solved by becoming more Christian. Apparently this moral decay is due to homosexuality and contraception??? Absurd.
And yes, I would absolutely say Santorum is making it an issue. Hell he agrees with me:
One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.” [spoilering stuff about contraception] + Show Spoiler +It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special. Again, I know most Presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These how profound impact on the health of our society.
Source
He wants this to be an issue. He wants sex to be "how things are supposed to be." He thinks this is really important for public policy. Am I really taking things out of context? Come on, this is precisely what he's saying.
|
On February 17 2012 12:48 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 12:33 xDaunt wrote:
I don't think that Santorum is making this an issue. From what I have seen, all of the comments on contraceptives are coming as responses to journalists' questions on the issue.
Even so, Santorum has talked about moral decay in the US as a national problem. Even if you disagree with his views, it's pretty hard to argue that American culture is a little bit fucked up right now, as demonstrated by increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates and the higher frequency of failures of family units. These are real problems that warrant discussion. Care to elaborate on why those are signs of a fucked up culture and how you measure success of a family unit?
I gave two metrics for "fucked up culture:" rising out-of-wedlock birthrates and failure of family units. With regards to the latter, all you have to do is look at divorce rates to see how frequently American families are in poor shape.
I'm not a cultural prude by any stretch of the imagination and I love the politically incorrect, but all that you have to do look at some of the garbage that's on TV or otherwise in pop culture that many Americans (particularly youths) idolize to see that there are problems. I don't really have a solution for the problem. Free speech is free speech, and people ultimately have to be responsible for themselves. I'm just pointing out that there is obviously a big problem.
|
On February 17 2012 12:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 17 2012 09:35 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2012 09:27 xDaunt wrote:Why the fuck are people having cow about this? All that he's suggesting is that people be abstinent. Big deal. I wasn't going to comment on this contraceptive issue because it's so stupid, but the ignorance on the subject is too much to ignore. Here are the two fundamental points: 1. Neither Rick Santorum nor anyone else can Constitutionally ban birth control. The Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut conclusively decided this issue in the 1960s. The "right to privacy" that was created in that case is so pervasively integrated into American jurisprudence now that the case will never be overturned, even if it was decided wrongly (which as a matter of Constitutional law, I believe it was, notwithstanding that the sought-after policy was correct). Accordingly, all of this talk about banning contraception is nothing short of blatant and unapologetic fear-mongering by democrats and the left. It's really that simple. 2. Rick Santorum has not said that he'd ban contraceptives. Go do some research on what he's actually he said. He has said that he doesn't like contraceptives. He has said that they're harmful. He has said that Griswold was decided wrongly. He has said that states should be able to pass laws governing contraceptives or even banning them as a matter of states rights. But, as far as I know and can tell, I haven't seen one quote where he has said that he'd ban them. I have seen quotes where he said that he would not impose his views of contraceptives on others. At the very least, he would guarantee the government was completely out of contrceptives. Funding, mandates, recommendations, everything. Correct. Generally speaking, the federal government has no business mandating to anyone that they be required to provide goods or services to a third person (this is one of the primary reasons why people oppose the anti-discrimination laws, but that's another story). Think about it this way. Guns are far more expensive than contraceptives. Should the federal government be required to purchase (or compel others to purchase) firearms for anyone who wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights? Obviously the answer is no. Freedom is about having the ability to do something, not having someone else pay for you to do something. No, because the world isn't that black and white. A huge majority of college educated people see the benefit to contraception and education and realize the catholic perspective is close minded and ancient. Abstinence has no validity and is proven ineffective when compared to education and availability of contraception. Santorum represents a huge step backwards and there is nothing wrong with people throwing a fit about it.
How exactly does abstinence "have no validity" and fail to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancy? You may want to pull out a dictionary.
You may find this hard to believe, but there are some very brilliant people in the Catholic Church (and other religions) who have written exhaustively about the philosophy of abstinence (and avoiding "fornication") and how it leads to the strengthening of marriages, family units, and society as a whole. I wouldn't dismiss their arguments out of hand, particularly because, since the "sexual revolution," there has been a very strong correlation between the spread of birth control and the rise in frequency of out-of-wedlock births and divorce. I certainly wouldn't say that the spread of birth control has caused these things (birth control is only part of the causal equation), but the consequences of its availability have certainly had their effects.
Just to avoid any confusion as to what I actually think, I do use birth control and think that it's perfectly okay to use it.
|
On February 17 2012 12:29 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 11:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 17 2012 09:35 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2012 09:27 xDaunt wrote:Why the fuck are people having cow about this? All that he's suggesting is that people be abstinent. Big deal. I wasn't going to comment on this contraceptive issue because it's so stupid, but the ignorance on the subject is too much to ignore. Here are the two fundamental points: 1. Neither Rick Santorum nor anyone else can Constitutionally ban birth control. The Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut conclusively decided this issue in the 1960s. The "right to privacy" that was created in that case is so pervasively integrated into American jurisprudence now that the case will never be overturned, even if it was decided wrongly (which as a matter of Constitutional law, I believe it was, notwithstanding that the sought-after policy was correct). Accordingly, all of this talk about banning contraception is nothing short of blatant and unapologetic fear-mongering by democrats and the left. It's really that simple. 2. Rick Santorum has not said that he'd ban contraceptives. Go do some research on what he's actually he said. He has said that he doesn't like contraceptives. He has said that they're harmful. He has said that Griswold was decided wrongly. He has said that states should be able to pass laws governing contraceptives or even banning them as a matter of states rights. But, as far as I know and can tell, I haven't seen one quote where he has said that he'd ban them. I have seen quotes where he said that he would not impose his views of contraceptives on others. At the very least, he would guarantee the government was completely out of contrceptives. Funding, mandates, recommendations, everything. Correct. Generally speaking, the federal government has no business mandating to anyone that they be required to provide goods or services to a third person (this is one of the primary reasons why people oppose the anti-discrimination laws, but that's another story). Think about it this way. Guns are far more expensive than contraceptives. Should the federal government be required to purchase (or compel others to purchase) firearms for anyone who wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights? Obviously the answer is no. Freedom is about having the ability to do something, not having someone else pay for you to do something. Your guns = contraceptives argument is flawed. Freedom is a complex issue, it seems you only believe in negative freedom (non-interference), there is also positive freedom (providing people with freedom they wouldn't otherwise have). If you argue against universal access to contraceptives based on negative freedom, you're actually arguing against universal healthcare. As long as their is a guarantee by the government to universal healthcare, and as long as that guarantee includes contraceptives, religious based organizations should not be allowed to deny certain services because those services are being, in part, provided by the government (based on the seperation of church and state).
You haven't done a very good job making the case that there is any material difference between having the government provide someone with birth control so that they exercise their "Constitutional right to privacy" and having the government provide someone with a firearm so that they can exercise their "Constitutional right to bear arms." Think about poor Jill Smith who works at Burger King making something near minimum wage. Though she has the right to buy a firearm, she can't afford a firearm. Accordingly, though no one is interfering with her right to bear arms (negative freedom), she is still unable to exercise her rights bear arms. Thus, she needs the government to provide her with a firearm to exercise that right (positive freedom). This is exactly what liberals are arguing in congress right now in support of Obamacare and the mandate that all insurers be forced to provide contraceptives to their insureds. There is no material difference between firearms and contraceptives unless you start to impart your own personal policy bias into the equation, which you clearly did when you start to go off on the irrelevant universal healthcare tangent.
|
On February 17 2012 13:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 12:38 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2012 11:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 17 2012 09:35 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2012 09:27 xDaunt wrote:Why the fuck are people having cow about this? All that he's suggesting is that people be abstinent. Big deal. I wasn't going to comment on this contraceptive issue because it's so stupid, but the ignorance on the subject is too much to ignore. Here are the two fundamental points: 1. Neither Rick Santorum nor anyone else can Constitutionally ban birth control. The Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut conclusively decided this issue in the 1960s. The "right to privacy" that was created in that case is so pervasively integrated into American jurisprudence now that the case will never be overturned, even if it was decided wrongly (which as a matter of Constitutional law, I believe it was, notwithstanding that the sought-after policy was correct). Accordingly, all of this talk about banning contraception is nothing short of blatant and unapologetic fear-mongering by democrats and the left. It's really that simple. 2. Rick Santorum has not said that he'd ban contraceptives. Go do some research on what he's actually he said. He has said that he doesn't like contraceptives. He has said that they're harmful. He has said that Griswold was decided wrongly. He has said that states should be able to pass laws governing contraceptives or even banning them as a matter of states rights. But, as far as I know and can tell, I haven't seen one quote where he has said that he'd ban them. I have seen quotes where he said that he would not impose his views of contraceptives on others. At the very least, he would guarantee the government was completely out of contrceptives. Funding, mandates, recommendations, everything. Correct. Generally speaking, the federal government has no business mandating to anyone that they be required to provide goods or services to a third person (this is one of the primary reasons why people oppose the anti-discrimination laws, but that's another story). Think about it this way. Guns are far more expensive than contraceptives. Should the federal government be required to purchase (or compel others to purchase) firearms for anyone who wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights? Obviously the answer is no. Freedom is about having the ability to do something, not having someone else pay for you to do something. No, because the world isn't that black and white. A huge majority of college educated people see the benefit to contraception and education and realize the catholic perspective is close minded and ancient. Abstinence has no validity and is proven ineffective when compared to education and availability of contraception. Santorum represents a huge step backwards and there is nothing wrong with people throwing a fit about it. How exactly does abstinence "have no validity" and fail to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancy? You may want to pull out a dictionary. You may find this hard to believe, but there are some very brilliant people in the Catholic Church (and other religions) who have written exhaustively about the philosophy of abstinence (and avoiding "fornication") and how it leads to the strengthening of marriages, family units, and society as a whole. I wouldn't dismiss their arguments out of hand, particularly because, since the "sexual revolution," there has been a very strong correlation between the spread of birth control and the rise in frequency of out-of-wedlock births and divorce. I certainly wouldn't say that the spread of birth control has caused these things (birth control is only part of the causal equation), but the consequences of its availability have certainly had their effects. Just to avoid any confusion as to what I actually think, I do use birth control and think that it's perfectly okay to use it.
Obviously if people don't have sex, there aren't going to be pregnancies, but the practice of using abstinence education as a method of preventing unintended pregnancies has been well documented as less effective than education focusing on contraceptives. You can't just tell teenagers not to have sex and expect them not to. Even the most religious kids at my high school had sex. Sure, not all of em, but I can certainly think of quite a few who are very religious. All I'm saying is that the goal of preventing teenage sex is *hopeless* and that studies show giving teenagers knowledge of how to stay safe prevents more pregnancies.
|
On February 17 2012 13:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 12:38 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2012 11:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 17 2012 09:35 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2012 09:27 xDaunt wrote:Why the fuck are people having cow about this? All that he's suggesting is that people be abstinent. Big deal. I wasn't going to comment on this contraceptive issue because it's so stupid, but the ignorance on the subject is too much to ignore. Here are the two fundamental points: 1. Neither Rick Santorum nor anyone else can Constitutionally ban birth control. The Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut conclusively decided this issue in the 1960s. The "right to privacy" that was created in that case is so pervasively integrated into American jurisprudence now that the case will never be overturned, even if it was decided wrongly (which as a matter of Constitutional law, I believe it was, notwithstanding that the sought-after policy was correct). Accordingly, all of this talk about banning contraception is nothing short of blatant and unapologetic fear-mongering by democrats and the left. It's really that simple. 2. Rick Santorum has not said that he'd ban contraceptives. Go do some research on what he's actually he said. He has said that he doesn't like contraceptives. He has said that they're harmful. He has said that Griswold was decided wrongly. He has said that states should be able to pass laws governing contraceptives or even banning them as a matter of states rights. But, as far as I know and can tell, I haven't seen one quote where he has said that he'd ban them. I have seen quotes where he said that he would not impose his views of contraceptives on others. At the very least, he would guarantee the government was completely out of contrceptives. Funding, mandates, recommendations, everything. Correct. Generally speaking, the federal government has no business mandating to anyone that they be required to provide goods or services to a third person (this is one of the primary reasons why people oppose the anti-discrimination laws, but that's another story). Think about it this way. Guns are far more expensive than contraceptives. Should the federal government be required to purchase (or compel others to purchase) firearms for anyone who wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights? Obviously the answer is no. Freedom is about having the ability to do something, not having someone else pay for you to do something. No, because the world isn't that black and white. A huge majority of college educated people see the benefit to contraception and education and realize the catholic perspective is close minded and ancient. Abstinence has no validity and is proven ineffective when compared to education and availability of contraception. Santorum represents a huge step backwards and there is nothing wrong with people throwing a fit about it. How exactly does abstinence "have no validity" and fail to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancy? You may want to pull out a dictionary.
?
People have sex. People want to have sex. Stopping people from having sex is like trying to keep a fatty from overeating at a buffet. All abstinence only education does is tell people sex is wrong and immoral unless you're married. Yeah, that's going to prevent horny people from getting it on.
Even if you delay having sex till marriage, its still retarded. You're probably one of those people that talk all the time about how taxes distort incentives right? Well abstinence distorts the reason to get married. You wanna know why so many people get married super early in the south? They're horny and religious as fuck so they decide to marry at the first chance so they get. Yeah I wonder why the divorce rate is so high in the south as well.
|
On February 17 2012 13:27 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 13:14 xDaunt wrote:On February 17 2012 12:38 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2012 11:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 17 2012 09:35 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2012 09:27 xDaunt wrote:Why the fuck are people having cow about this? All that he's suggesting is that people be abstinent. Big deal. I wasn't going to comment on this contraceptive issue because it's so stupid, but the ignorance on the subject is too much to ignore. Here are the two fundamental points: 1. Neither Rick Santorum nor anyone else can Constitutionally ban birth control. The Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut conclusively decided this issue in the 1960s. The "right to privacy" that was created in that case is so pervasively integrated into American jurisprudence now that the case will never be overturned, even if it was decided wrongly (which as a matter of Constitutional law, I believe it was, notwithstanding that the sought-after policy was correct). Accordingly, all of this talk about banning contraception is nothing short of blatant and unapologetic fear-mongering by democrats and the left. It's really that simple. 2. Rick Santorum has not said that he'd ban contraceptives. Go do some research on what he's actually he said. He has said that he doesn't like contraceptives. He has said that they're harmful. He has said that Griswold was decided wrongly. He has said that states should be able to pass laws governing contraceptives or even banning them as a matter of states rights. But, as far as I know and can tell, I haven't seen one quote where he has said that he'd ban them. I have seen quotes where he said that he would not impose his views of contraceptives on others. At the very least, he would guarantee the government was completely out of contrceptives. Funding, mandates, recommendations, everything. Correct. Generally speaking, the federal government has no business mandating to anyone that they be required to provide goods or services to a third person (this is one of the primary reasons why people oppose the anti-discrimination laws, but that's another story). Think about it this way. Guns are far more expensive than contraceptives. Should the federal government be required to purchase (or compel others to purchase) firearms for anyone who wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights? Obviously the answer is no. Freedom is about having the ability to do something, not having someone else pay for you to do something. No, because the world isn't that black and white. A huge majority of college educated people see the benefit to contraception and education and realize the catholic perspective is close minded and ancient. Abstinence has no validity and is proven ineffective when compared to education and availability of contraception. Santorum represents a huge step backwards and there is nothing wrong with people throwing a fit about it. How exactly does abstinence "have no validity" and fail to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancy? You may want to pull out a dictionary. ? People have sex. People want to have sex. Stopping people from having sex is like trying to keep a fatty from overeating at a buffet. All abstinence only education does is tell people sex is wrong and immoral unless you're married. Yeah, that's going to prevent horny people from getting it on. Even if you delay having sex till marriage, its still retarded. You're probably one of those people that talk all the time about how taxes distort incentives right? Well abstinence distorts the reason to get married. You wanna know why so many people get married super early in the south? They're horny and religious as fuck so they decide to marry at the first chance so they get. Yeah I wonder why the divorce rate is so high in the south as well.
It doesn't and shouldn't fucking matter what people want to do. The government has no right to regulate consensual and harmless actions in peoples' bedrooms, and any politician who argues against that notion is wrong. If people want to have sex out of marriage, let them. The same applies to homosexuality.
If you disagree, don't do it yourself and don't associate with those people. What you should never do is prohibit them from doing so in the first place.
|
Look, I don't want to get into an abstinence vs birth control education debate because it's immaterial and not really the problem anyway. The real issue as I alluded above is that there is has been a cultural failure in this country that has resulted poor behavior by individuals, leading to identifiable problems such as higher incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births. People are not taking adequate responsibility for themselves.
It's this problem that Santorum is trying to address and bring up for discussion, and people are wildly misrepresenting what he is saying and advocating.
|
On February 17 2012 13:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 12:29 Tor wrote:On February 17 2012 11:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 17 2012 09:35 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2012 09:27 xDaunt wrote:Why the fuck are people having cow about this? All that he's suggesting is that people be abstinent. Big deal. I wasn't going to comment on this contraceptive issue because it's so stupid, but the ignorance on the subject is too much to ignore. Here are the two fundamental points: 1. Neither Rick Santorum nor anyone else can Constitutionally ban birth control. The Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut conclusively decided this issue in the 1960s. The "right to privacy" that was created in that case is so pervasively integrated into American jurisprudence now that the case will never be overturned, even if it was decided wrongly (which as a matter of Constitutional law, I believe it was, notwithstanding that the sought-after policy was correct). Accordingly, all of this talk about banning contraception is nothing short of blatant and unapologetic fear-mongering by democrats and the left. It's really that simple. 2. Rick Santorum has not said that he'd ban contraceptives. Go do some research on what he's actually he said. He has said that he doesn't like contraceptives. He has said that they're harmful. He has said that Griswold was decided wrongly. He has said that states should be able to pass laws governing contraceptives or even banning them as a matter of states rights. But, as far as I know and can tell, I haven't seen one quote where he has said that he'd ban them. I have seen quotes where he said that he would not impose his views of contraceptives on others. At the very least, he would guarantee the government was completely out of contrceptives. Funding, mandates, recommendations, everything. Correct. Generally speaking, the federal government has no business mandating to anyone that they be required to provide goods or services to a third person (this is one of the primary reasons why people oppose the anti-discrimination laws, but that's another story). Think about it this way. Guns are far more expensive than contraceptives. Should the federal government be required to purchase (or compel others to purchase) firearms for anyone who wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights? Obviously the answer is no. Freedom is about having the ability to do something, not having someone else pay for you to do something. Your guns = contraceptives argument is flawed. Freedom is a complex issue, it seems you only believe in negative freedom (non-interference), there is also positive freedom (providing people with freedom they wouldn't otherwise have). If you argue against universal access to contraceptives based on negative freedom, you're actually arguing against universal healthcare. As long as their is a guarantee by the government to universal healthcare, and as long as that guarantee includes contraceptives, religious based organizations should not be allowed to deny certain services because those services are being, in part, provided by the government (based on the seperation of church and state). You haven't done a very good job making the case that there is any material difference between having the government provide someone with birth control so that they exercise their "Constitutional right to privacy" and having the government provide someone with a firearm so that they can exercise their "Constitutional right to bear arms." Think about poor Jill Smith who works at Burger King making something near minimum wage. Though she has the right to buy a firearm, she can't afford a firearm. Accordingly, though no one is interfering with her right to bear arms (negative freedom), she is still unable to exercise her rights bear arms. Thus, she needs the government to provide her with a firearm to exercise that right (positive freedom). This is exactly what liberals are arguing in congress right now in support of Obamacare and the mandate that all insurers be forced to provide contraceptives to their insureds. There is no material difference between firearms and contraceptives unless you start to impart your own personal policy bias into the equation, which you clearly did when you start to go off on the irrelevant universal healthcare tangent.
Just as an fyi, the majority of money those Catholic institutions get is from the federal government. Hospitals are heavily subsidized regardless of what organization runs them, so long as they provide services to all Americans and abide by the Non-Discrimination Act and other federal laws.
This is why the contraception issue is a joke. If your organization does not want to provide contraception, don't take government money to keep yourself afloat.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Sounds pretty explicitly clear.
|
On February 17 2012 13:40 xDaunt wrote:
Look, I don't want to get into an abstinence vs birth control education debate because it's immaterial and not really the problem anyway. The real issue as I alluded above is that there is has been cultural failure in this country that has resulted poor behavior, leading to identifiable problems such as higher incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births. People are not taking adequate responsibility for themselves.
It's this problem that Santorum is trying to address and bring up for discussion, and people are wildly misrepresenting what he is saying and advocating.
If that's the line of logic, then how could someone argue against birth control and legalized abortion? It's pretty much established fact at this point that both of those are effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy. And the best part? Neither involve government intrusion in private lives nor do either come close to violating the constitution.
Santorum's views aren't driven by logic though, they're driven by religion. He wants to impose his religious values on others, which is the key thing to be concerned about.
|
On February 17 2012 13:40 xDaunt wrote:
Look, I don't want to get into an abstinence vs birth control education debate because it's immaterial and not really the problem anyway. The real issue as I alluded above is that there is has been a cultural failure in this country that has resulted poor behavior by individuals, leading to identifiable problems such as higher incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births. People are not taking adequate responsibility for themselves.
It's this problem that Santorum is trying to address and bring up for discussion, and people are wildly misrepresenting what he is saying and advocating.
Divorce rates going up is more of a sign of a healthy society. People sticking together when they'd be better off apart isn't a sign of a good culture. And I don't see how out-of-wedlock births is much of an issue. Child pregnancies and such might be.
|
On February 17 2012 13:40 xDaunt wrote:
Look, I don't want to get into an abstinence vs birth control education debate because it's immaterial and not really the problem anyway. The real issue as I alluded above is that there is has been a cultural failure in this country that has resulted poor behavior by individuals, leading to identifiable problems such as higher incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births. People are not taking adequate responsibility for themselves.
It's this problem that Santorum is trying to address and bring up for discussion, and people are wildly misrepresenting what he is saying and advocating.
Santorum wants to decrease out of wedlock pregnancies.
Santorum is advocating abstinence.
Abstinence only education has been empirically shown to increase early, out of wedlock pregnancies and STD transmission vs comprehensive sexual education.
????
Fuck statistics and science, what matters is that there is moral decay and the way to fix this country is by making idiotic choices based on religious ideology.
|
On February 17 2012 13:40 xDaunt wrote:
Look, I don't want to get into an abstinence vs birth control education debate because it's immaterial and not really the problem anyway. The real issue as I alluded above is that there is has been a cultural failure in this country that has resulted poor behavior by individuals, leading to identifiable problems such as higher incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births. People are not taking adequate responsibility for themselves.
It's this problem that Santorum is trying to address and bring up for discussion, and people are wildly misrepresenting what he is saying and advocating.
I'm actually confused here. You don't want to get into a debate but this is exactly what Santorum is trying to bring up.
Let's friggin' talk about it then! This is an issue! Let's have a discussion! Yay internet forums and all that stuff! And yes, I do understand that it's difficult from your point of view, considering several people are responding to you at once, all arguing strongly, but we're really not misrepresenting Santorum's opinion that much. Maybe another conservative voice can come in here and fight with you, I don't know. I don't want to push you out of the discussion just because of that.
But look, Santorum doesn't like contraception. Santorum thinks the morality of sex-not-for-children is questionable. And Santorum wants to have these views contribute to his public policy. He has said all these things. We are not making that up. And many of us disagree with that pretty vehemently. It's not the President's place.
|
On February 17 2012 13:48 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 13:40 xDaunt wrote:
Look, I don't want to get into an abstinence vs birth control education debate because it's immaterial and not really the problem anyway. The real issue as I alluded above is that there is has been a cultural failure in this country that has resulted poor behavior by individuals, leading to identifiable problems such as higher incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births. People are not taking adequate responsibility for themselves.
It's this problem that Santorum is trying to address and bring up for discussion, and people are wildly misrepresenting what he is saying and advocating. Santorum wants to decrease out of wedlock pregnancies. Santorum is advocating abstinence. Abstinence only education has been empirically shown to increase early, out of wedlock pregnancies and STD transmission vs comprehensive sexual education. ???? Fuck statistics and science, what matters is that there is moral decay and the way to fix this country is by making idiotic choices based on religious ideology.
Yep, this is also a true point.
If abstinence-only education worked he could at least make the case for it, but it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
