On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Really? Fear mongering?
Does it really seem like spin to you to make the jump from "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. . . . Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,” to "he wants to limit access to contraceptives?"
How about when he said he thought that Griswold v. Connecticut had been decided wrongly? When he jokingly analogized birth control to shoe strings, and said that states should have the right to pass "silly" laws banning whatever they want? I mean, is anyone legit afraid that he's going to try to federally ban contraceptives? Of course not. What we're worried about such laws being enacted on a state level, and the kinds of judges such a president would surely support and appoint. If we have a president who not only believes that states have the right to pass laws which violate the federal constitution, but specifically focuses on cases that relate to reproductive rights, you can bet he’s going to seek out judges with those same beliefs.
It's not one random guy angry babbling about his morale views on sex. There are "personhood" bills being pushed in more and more states. Title X funding gets slashed every year and Planned Parenthood gets defunded in more and more states. A whopping 92 restrictions on legal abortion access were passed in 2011, (three times higher than just a few years ago), and we're already on track to beat that record in 2012. Yesterday an all-male panel met in a congressional hearing to talk about whether or not providing contraceptives to employees violated religious freedoms. (Further and off topic, the Bishop's refusal to accept Obama's compromise plainly shows that the entire debate isn't about religious freedom, but about control.)
There are some *crazy* bills out there right now, (the vast majority proposed by republicans or conservatives.) The "Pitts Bill", (HR 358), would literally allow women to die at hospitals instead of receiving emergency care that might include an abortion. (This same bill would also make it OK for insurance companies to deny coverage after the fact if life-saving procedures included an abortion). The Rehberg Draft, (narrowly defeated a few weeks ago), would have defunded Title X in its entirety. There's a bill in Virginia right now which would actually require women seeking an abortion of any sort, for any reason, to submit to a non-medically useful vaginal probing. (Small government my ass)
That's just some of the frankly ridiculous bullshit going on in our country right now, all from one political party, all on the basis of morality. To be aware of the battle over access to reproductive health resources in this country, and to choose to ignore a presidential candidate saying that he is anti-contraceptive and anti-choice is incredibly short sighted and willfully ignorant.
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either.
Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons.
There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views.
See, this is the kind of thing that I don't understand. The country has real problems right now -- problems with a capital P. Regardless of where you fall on the birth control issue, federal funding (or lack thereof) is not one of those big problems. Yet, people blow issues like this one up way out of proportion and base their electoral issues on where candidates fall on these relativity minor issues. So instead of focusing on real issues like looming fiscal disaster and seemingly imminent war in and around Iran, the country is talking about contraception right now. How stupid are we?
I don't think you understand how important access to contraceptives and family planning is to women's autonomy. Especially poorer women. These are issues that absolutely affect the day to day lives of half the population.
That you blow it off so casually as a "stupid" issue is rather offensive.
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either.
Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons.
There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views.
See, this is the kind of thing that I don't understand. The country has real problems right now -- problems with a capital P. Regardless of where you fall on the birth control issue, federal funding (or lack thereof) is not one of those big problems. Yet, people blow issues like this one up way out of proportion and base their electoral issues on where candidates fall on these relativity minor issues. So instead of focusing on real issues like looming fiscal disaster and seemingly imminent war in and around Iran, the country is talking about contraception right now. How stupid are we?
That's what happens when all the candidates are pretty much the same (besides RP). How do they differ? They all want to bomb Iran ASAP, cut taxes everywhere, and limit entitlements. When Santorum's shtick is being the uber family centered social conservative that's what people are going to focus on.
Edit: And as others have mentioned, an issue that directly affects the way 50% of the population lives isn't exactly an issue you can just toss aside.
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either.
Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons.
There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views.
See, this is the kind of thing that I don't understand. The country has real problems right now -- problems with a capital P. Regardless of where you fall on the birth control issue, federal funding (or lack thereof) is not one of those big problems. Yet, people blow issues like this one up way out of proportion and base their electoral issues on where candidates fall on these relativity minor issues. So instead of focusing on real issues like looming fiscal disaster and seemingly imminent war in and around Iran, the country is talking about contraception right now. How stupid are we?
All facets of a candidate should be weighed together. To many people, Santorum doesn't exactly represent an acceptable approach to either morality, fiscal issues or Iran. The fact that contraception is an issue is because the Republicans brought it up as an issue, it says as much about Republican priorities as it does Democratic priorities. In fact, the Democrats don't even want contraceptives to be a wedge issue, they just want to make sure religious institutions cannot deny a right that is guaranteed by the government.
Democratic fear-mongering is an exaggeration. Disputing someones views when someone brings them up is part of the democratic process; if you cannot do that, why have democracy? In Canada, even though a conservative party has a majority (and can force any bill they want, with no way to stop it), the people have successfully encouraged conservatives to examine and make ammendents to a bill which attacks our privacy. If we did not speak up on this issue because their are growing concerns about Iran, then we could have lost much of our right to privacy. Your bias actually hurts democracy.
Saying we shouldn't be concerned about one issue because there are other issues is ignorant. If Santorum were elected, based on how he's presented himself, it is reasonable to believe he'd strip away many rights to contraception. It's the Republicans fault for making this an issue, not the Democrats. Granted, if he had some masterful and perfect solution to the economy, it would be reasonable to support and vote for him regardless of his views on contraception, however, it does not appear to be the case that Santorum has some brilliant ideas about how to govern the USA. Because Santorum lacks any brilliant ideas, the media and the electorate will focus on his contentious ideas instead.
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either.
Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons.
There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views.
See, this is the kind of thing that I don't understand. The country has real problems right now -- problems with a capital P. Regardless of where you fall on the birth control issue, federal funding (or lack thereof) is not one of those big problems. Yet, people blow issues like this one up way out of proportion and base their electoral issues on where candidates fall on these relativity minor issues. So instead of focusing on real issues like looming fiscal disaster and seemingly imminent war in and around Iran, the country is talking about contraception right now. How stupid are we?
Once again, Santorum is the one talking and the one who says this is important. You actually just called Santorum stupid.
It sounds like you're willing to concede on social issues though, so would you rather talk about how terrible Santorum would be for foreign policy instead?
On February 18 2012 03:20 xDaunt wrote: Yes, it's fear-mongering, and I stick by that label. Hell, Santorum even voted for Title X (ie federally funded contraception).
So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_?
MASON, Ohio — Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine is backing Rick Santorum's presidential bid.
The former U.S. senator is expected to make the announcement at a news conference Friday at the statehouse in Columbus. Republicans with direct knowledge of the pending endorsement disclosed it to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity.
DeWine served four terms in the House and two terms in the Senate before losing his re-election bid to Sherrod Brown in 2006. He served as the chairman of Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign in Ohio and won a close election for state attorney general in 2010.
On February 18 2012 03:20 xDaunt wrote: Yes, it's fear-mongering, and I stick by that label. Hell, Santorum even voted for Title X (ie federally funded contraception).
So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_?
I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc.
It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival.
I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above).
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.
States with abstinence only sex education have higher teenage pregnancy rates.
To be clear, you weren't somehow taking me to have said otherwise?
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either.
Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons.
There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views.
See, this is the kind of thing that I don't understand. The country has real problems right now -- problems with a capital P. Regardless of where you fall on the birth control issue, federal funding (or lack thereof) is not one of those big problems. Yet, people blow issues like this one up way out of proportion and base their electoral issues on where candidates fall on these relativity minor issues. So instead of focusing on real issues like looming fiscal disaster and seemingly imminent war in and around Iran, the country is talking about contraception right now. How stupid are we?
It's because social freedoms are NOT a minor issue to many in this country. Consistently ignoring "minor" social issues is what ends you up in a police state or a theocracy that takes away rights based on arbitrary religious beliefs.
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either.
Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons.
There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views.
See, this is the kind of thing that I don't understand. The country has real problems right now -- problems with a capital P. Regardless of where you fall on the birth control issue, federal funding (or lack thereof) is not one of those big problems. Yet, people blow issues like this one up way out of proportion and base their electoral issues on where candidates fall on these relativity minor issues. So instead of focusing on real issues like looming fiscal disaster and seemingly imminent war in and around Iran, the country is talking about contraception right now. How stupid are we?
It's because social freedoms are NOT a minor issue to many in this country. Consistently ignoring "minor" social issues is what ends you up in a police state or a theocracy that takes away rights based on arbitrary religious beliefs.
Yeah, except no one's talking about taking away social freedoms. The conversation, to the extent that it exists, revolves around who has to pay for the exercise of those freedoms.
On February 18 2012 03:20 xDaunt wrote: Yes, it's fear-mongering, and I stick by that label. Hell, Santorum even voted for Title X (ie federally funded contraception).
So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_?
I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc.
It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival.
I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above).
You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents.
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either.
Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons.
There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views.
See, this is the kind of thing that I don't understand. The country has real problems right now -- problems with a capital P. Regardless of where you fall on the birth control issue, federal funding (or lack thereof) is not one of those big problems. Yet, people blow issues like this one up way out of proportion and base their electoral issues on where candidates fall on these relativity minor issues. So instead of focusing on real issues like looming fiscal disaster and seemingly imminent war in and around Iran, the country is talking about contraception right now. How stupid are we?
It's because social freedoms are NOT a minor issue to many in this country. Consistently ignoring "minor" social issues is what ends you up in a police state or a theocracy that takes away rights based on arbitrary religious beliefs.
Yeah, except no one's talking about taking away social freedoms. The conversation, to the extent that it exists, revolves around who has to pay for the exercise of those freedoms.
Again, you're failing to see that coverage of contraceptives is seen not only as necessary for women's equality under medical care, but also as a general right that people get as part of their universal right to healthcare (a belief that I don't think it's a stretch to say that the majority of the developed western world believes in). I've already mentioned this idea and you failed to address it.
On February 18 2012 03:20 xDaunt wrote: Yes, it's fear-mongering, and I stick by that label. Hell, Santorum even voted for Title X (ie federally funded contraception).
So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_?
I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc.
It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival.
I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above).
You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents.
And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier).
universal right to healthcare (a belief that I don't think it's a stretch to say that the majority of the developed western world believes in)
Except republicans. Depending on how you look at that it's either the joke that even the best comedian couldn't write or the most depressing thing in the universe.
edit: Which is completely unsurprising given the fact that there are seriously people on here arguing that the availability of contraceptives INCREASES birthrates out of marriage?
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either.
Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons.
There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views.
See, this is the kind of thing that I don't understand. The country has real problems right now -- problems with a capital P. Regardless of where you fall on the birth control issue, federal funding (or lack thereof) is not one of those big problems. Yet, people blow issues like this one up way out of proportion and base their electoral issues on where candidates fall on these relativity minor issues. So instead of focusing on real issues like looming fiscal disaster and seemingly imminent war in and around Iran, the country is talking about contraception right now. How stupid are we?
It's because social freedoms are NOT a minor issue to many in this country. Consistently ignoring "minor" social issues is what ends you up in a police state or a theocracy that takes away rights based on arbitrary religious beliefs.
Yeah, except no one's talking about taking away social freedoms. The conversation, to the extent that it exists, revolves around who has to pay for the exercise of those freedoms.
Again, you're failing to see that coverage of contraceptives is seen not only as necessary for women's equality under medical care, but also as a general right that people get as part of their universal right to healthcare (a belief that I don't think it's a stretch to say that the majority of the developed western world believes in). I've already mentioned this idea and you failed to address it.
No, you're just incapable of acknowledging the difference between a Constitutional right and the personal policy preference of having someone pay for someone else's exercise of that right. I already discussed this thoroughly and don't feel like retreading the ground.
On February 18 2012 03:20 xDaunt wrote: Yes, it's fear-mongering, and I stick by that label. Hell, Santorum even voted for Title X (ie federally funded contraception).
So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_?
I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc.
It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival.
I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above).
You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents.
Stating there is a problem with out-of-wedlock births without data to back it up is just useless. 3 friends of mine have a girlfriend. they have been in stable relationships for years. they have kids. there not married. Does this make them bad parents? Does is stop the child from growing up in a good enviroment? Lots of modern people do not get married for any number of reasonable reasons.
On February 18 2012 03:20 xDaunt wrote: Yes, it's fear-mongering, and I stick by that label. Hell, Santorum even voted for Title X (ie federally funded contraception).
So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_?
I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc.
It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival.
I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above).
You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents.
And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier).
And that's exactly the point - in a country where we tout the ideals of freedom so much, it's incredibly hypocritical for you to judge what you think is a social problem and then try to get rid of that via government action. I'm as judgmental as the next guy when it comes to certain things - stuff like Jersey Shore is absolute trash and embarrasing to our culture. That said, does the government (and this includes state governments, not just the federal government) have any place whatsoever in making any actions to discourage that kind of behavior? No. The government's job is not to arbitrarily decide what our culture is going to be and then make policies to that end. The government's job is to protect our rights/self/property.
On February 18 2012 03:20 xDaunt wrote: Yes, it's fear-mongering, and I stick by that label. Hell, Santorum even voted for Title X (ie federally funded contraception).
So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_?
I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc.
It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival.
I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above).
You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents.
Stating there is a problem with out-of-wedlock births without data to back it up is just useless. 3 friends of mine have a girlfriend. they have been in stable relationships for years. they have kids. there not married. Does this make them bad parents? Does is stop the child from growing up in a good enviroment? Lots of modern people do not get married for any number of reasonable reasons.
That's the point I was making.
Except republicans. Depending on how you look at that it's either the joke that even the best comedian couldn't write or the most depressing thing in the universe.
edit: Which is completely unsurprising given the fact that there are seriously people on here arguing that the availability of contraceptives INCREASES birthrates out of marriage?
It's perfectly fine for Republicans/conservatives to not believe that healthcare is a fundamental human right - I think it's slightly sickening that they think something like that should be left to market forces, but that's their opinion, and there are only a very small amount of opinions that I will actually not respect the person for having. The problem is when people like xDaunt strawman the argument and say that Democrats want other people to pay for women's access to a good. Republicans need to understand that Democrats are arguing for this on the basis of access to equality of healthcare and a fundamental human right. It's not an argument about how society should just pay for peoples' access to something.
EPT
