On February 17 2012 08:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Found it:
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.
Ah yes, the "philosophy of abstinence." I hear NYU has a great program.
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.
I don't think that the debate is worthwhile because birth control isn't the problem (nor is abstinence education. You could make birth control education and materials pervasively available throughout the country and it wouldn't matter. The problems are more fundamental.
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.
No, there's nothing difficult about my point of view. I simply see the problem as being much broader than just birth control. I don't speak for Santorum, but I'd bet you that he sees it that way too. Think about it this way: abstinence education isn't just about telling people not to have sex outside of marriage. It's also about inculcating people with proper moral and values such that they are making good decisions and doing the right thing on their own. In this world of moral relativism, I understand why people are uncomfortable with this concept. Nonetheless, this country was largely founded upon the idea of "republican virtue" -- the idea that people would be accountable to themselves and thus be good citizens and productive members of society. This virtue has largely been lost, and this loss is what is responsible for a lot of this country's problems, including the cultural problems that I have been alluding to.
So President Santorum would attempt to instill this "republican virtue" in the community how? Apparently by making policy decisions that negatively affect citizens but are in line with preaching morality because the big picture is what matters, not pesky things like details.
On February 17 2012 14:10 ZeaL. wrote: So President Santorum would attempt to instill this "republican virtue" in the community how? Apparently by making policy decisions that negatively affect citizens but are in line with preaching morality because the big picture is what matters, not pesky things like details.
He hasn't said that he'd do anything, and I haven't made any proposals for what should be done. It's a Catch-22. How can the federal government fix a problem that it Constitutionally is not supposed to address in the first place? My guess is that the general idea is to start a discussion to foster change from the bottom up.
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.
I don't think that the debate is worthwhile because birth control isn't the problem (nor is abstinence education. You could make birth control education and materials pervasively available throughout the country and it wouldn't matter. The problems are more fundamental.
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.
No, there's nothing difficult about my point of view. I simply see the problem as being much broader than just birth control. I don't speak for Santorum, but I'd bet you that he sees it that way too. Think about it this way: abstinence education isn't just about telling people not to have sex outside of marriage. It's also about inculcating people with proper moral and values such that they are making good decisions and doing the right thing on their own. In this world of moral relativism, I understand why people are uncomfortable with this concept. Nonetheless, this country was largely founded upon the idea of "republican virtue" -- the idea that people would be accountable to themselves and thus be good citizens and productive members of society. This virtue has largely been lost, and this loss is what is responsible for a lot of this country's problems, including the cultural problems that I have been alluding to.
I was saying your position in this thread is difficult, because you're being attacked on all sides. It can make it rather difficult to have a reasonable debate, that's all.
Anyway, apparently Santorum does think that contraception is at least part of the problem. Do you disagree?
Bringing up moral relativism is a complete non sequitor (even if it doesn't seem like it at first). There's nothing relativistic here. Just because I think people should be generally allowed to do what they want doesn't mean I believe in moral relativity. After all we both believe, in some way, that people should be allowed to do what they want. The fact is that abstinence education doesn't work, so you aren't inculcating people with anything. Instead, when they do have sex, they do not have the proper knowledge to make good decisions. If you don't teach the kids about the realities of sex, then it's just stupid to expect them to make good decisions.
You're saying that people should be allowed to make their own decisions, but you're also saying point-blank that proper moral values includes abstinence. You seem to think it's more moral than having sex before marriage. Where are you getting this idea, exactly? I understand that you might think that's self-evident, but I disagree, so I would like some sort of explanation.
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.
Philosophy of abstinence in regards to fornication is very different than abstinence within marriage as the only moral means of birth control. And while it's true many Catholic writers have advocated both, the second seems more the influence of stoicism within early Christianity which is where you get Santorum's 'sex must be tied to child bearing'. Whereas no such teaching exists within the text itself. I understand there are still some that hold to this extra-biblical teaching, but I hate hearing it get trotted out in a political debate.
On February 17 2012 14:23 DoubleReed wrote: I was saying your position in this thread is difficult, because you're being attacked on all sides. It can make it rather difficult to have a reasonable debate, that's all.
Oh don't worry. This thread is far easier to deal with than what I'm accustomed to.
Anyway, apparently Santorum does think that contraception is at least part of the problem. Do you disagree?
Yep. He thinks that it's part of the problem because it enables potentially bad behavior. I disagree with him on this point in that I see contraception merely as a tool. Like a gun, it can be used for good or for ill.
Bringing up moral relativism is a complete non sequitor. The fact is that abstinence education doesn't work, so you aren't inculcating people with anything. Instead, when they do have sex, they do not have the proper knowledge to make good decisions. If you don't teach the kids about the realities of sex, then it's just stupid to expect them to make good decisions.
As I said before, I'm making a point larger than the merits of abstinence education vs birth control education. The reference to moral relativism is material to that larger point, which is basically one of a fairly objective version of morality when you distill what I'm saying down to its core. Last I checked, objectivism is anathema to moral relativism.
You're saying that people should be allowed to make their own decisions, but you're also saying point-blank that proper moral values includes abstinence. You seem to think it's more moral than having sex before marriage. Where are you getting this idea, exactly? I understand that you might think that's self-evident, but I disagree, so I would like some sort of explanation.
Yes, people should be allowed to make their own decision. No, I did not say that proper moral values include abstinence. What I did say is that teaching abstinence necessarily includes the inculcation of proper moral values. Do you see the difference? One always includes the other, but the other does not always include the one. Also, I have not said that it's more moral to refrain from having sex before marriage. I do not believe that is necessarily the case in all circumstances (and it sure as hell isn't something that I practiced).
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.
You're confusing a freedom with a right. The government is required to supply you with access to a right (should it be a good) or the ability to exercise a right. I'd say the majority of democrats (those fighting for this contraceptive issue) and probably the vast majority of the developed western world view health care as a right, and contraceptives are part of that. We have a right to guns - we have a right to them via reasonable access. Those fighting for this are applying the same principle to contraceptives - the government should ensure reasonable access to them as well.
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.
Philosophy of abstinence in regards to fornication is very different than abstinence within marriage as the only moral means of birth control. And while it's true many Catholic writers have advocated both, the second seems more the influence of stoicism within early Christianity which is where you get Santorum's 'sex must be tied to child bearing'. Whereas no such teaching exists within the text itself. I understand there are still some that hold to this extra-biblical teaching, but I hate hearing it get trotted out in a political debate.
Yes, you're correct on this dichotomy. For what it's worth, I think that the Catholic Church's position on fornication within marriage is just silly. In fact, their arguments against using birth control within marriage fall apart when they say that it's okay to use condoms to prevent the spread of STD's (namely AIDS).
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.
Philosophy of abstinence in regards to fornication is very different than abstinence within marriage as the only moral means of birth control. And while it's true many Catholic writers have advocated both, the second seems more the influence of stoicism within early Christianity which is where you get Santorum's 'sex must be tied to child bearing'. Whereas no such teaching exists within the text itself. I understand there are still some that hold to this extra-biblical teaching, but I hate hearing it get trotted out in a political debate.
Yes, you're correct on this dichotomy. For what it's worth, I think that the Catholic Church's position on fornication within marriage is just silly. In fact, their arguments against using birth control within marriage fall apart when they say that it's okay to use condoms to prevent the spread of STD's (namely AIDS).
That and the fact that 98% of Catholics use birth control regardless, and that's in America where people are actually religious. Santorum is in the fringe even among religious people.
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.
Divorce rates in the United States have been falling since 1979, just fyi.
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.
Divorce rates in the United States have been falling since 1979, just fyi.
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.
You're confusing a freedom with a right. The government is required to supply you with access to a right (should it be a good) or the ability to exercise a right. I'd say the majority of democrats (those fighting for this contraceptive issue) and probably the vast majority of the developed western world view health care as a right, and contraceptives are part of that. We have a right to guns - we have a right to them via reasonable access. Those fighting for this are applying the same principle to contraceptives - the government should ensure reasonable access to them as well.
Umm, that's not correct at all. The government isn't "required" to do anything when you have a right. It's merely required to not infringe upon it.
Your comparison to guns is also not right. The government isn't required to make sure everyone has a gun; it's only required to not make it unreasonably difficult to obtain one from a private party. In terms of health care (if you want to call it a right, which i vehemently disagree with), it would only require that the government doesn't make unrealistic hoops for a citizen to jump through to acquire healthcare from a private provider for the government to deliver on it's constitutional garauntee.
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.
Divorce rates in the United States have been falling since 1979, just fyi.
That's not really relevant to my point while it goes directly against his.
Not quite though, when you weigh in the marriage rate itself the stat of falling divorce rates is deceptive. The institution of marriage itself continues to crumble along with partners who are not married when it comes to length of time together.
It would be true as education spreads, income distributes more evenly to females and medicinal structures are more widely available; marriage, birth rates and coupling declines. Whether or not it is a good thing or not.... well Iyou guys can decide but it appears to be a natural progression of older, wealthy societies.
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.
You're confusing a freedom with a right. The government is required to supply you with access to a right (should it be a good) or the ability to exercise a right. I'd say the majority of democrats (those fighting for this contraceptive issue) and probably the vast majority of the developed western world view health care as a right, and contraceptives are part of that. We have a right to guns - we have a right to them via reasonable access. Those fighting for this are applying the same principle to contraceptives - the government should ensure reasonable access to them as well.
Umm, that's not correct at all. The government isn't "required" to do anything when you have a right. It's merely required to not infringe upon it.
Your comparison to guns is also not right. The government isn't required to make sure everyone has a gun; it's only required to not make it unreasonably difficult to obtain one from a private party. In terms of health care (if you want to call it a right, which i vehemently disagree with), it would only require that the government doesn't make unrealistic hoops for a citizen to jump through to acquire healthcare from a private provider for the government to deliver on it's constitutional garauntee.
Uh, no. This is completely incorrect. A right to healthcare implies the govt must provide healthcare in the same way a right to arms means the govt must provide arms. However, the Constitution states that it's a "right to bear arms," which is completely different. They aren't providing arms, they are letting you have them if you want.
You also said the govt isn't "required" to do anything if you have a right. What? Have you ever read the Bill of Rights? Here's a quick list of things the govt is required to do for people as explicitly stated in the BoR: 1. provide due process 2. give just compensation regarding eminent domain 3. provide a trial by jury 3. provide a speedy trial 4. provide a grand jury 5. provide legal counsel
You can also make the case that many of the rights where the government is not supposed to infringe are actually mandates for the government to do something, especially at the time they were written. When the 13th amendment passed, obviously the government had to do something to enforce it. Regardless, the above rights are explicit things the government must give everyone.
Edit: Also, these are only a rights in the BoR. There are quite a few other things we would consider to be rights that aren't stated.
I'm not really one to call healthcare a right, but the case can be made pretty easily. If the govt is required to provide the accused with a lawyer, there's no real reason they can't be required to provide the sick with a doctor.
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.
Ah yes, the "philosophy of abstinence." I hear NYU has a great program.
States with abstinence only sex education have higher teenage pregnancy rates.
I really don't think xDaunt is advocating for teaching abstinence for sex education here. What's important is to take a step back and look at some of the problems America is having - over here Australia also has a high divorce rate.
Rather than saying "oh my solution is the right one, let's teach abstinence" which you can get with some social conservatives - or "let's do this" with some liberal-minded people instead - it's important to have an adult conversation about the problems society is facing these days without the demagoguing which definitely goes both ways with Santorum. Personally I don't like most of his views but I think a lot of people would agree that some of his views he demagogues things a lot and his views get demagogued a bit.
EPT
