yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Continued...
Well, what ruins this joke for some I suppose is the fact that abstinence remains the cheapest AND most effective form of birth control with the added bonus of STD prevention. Buzzkill I know.
Now if we could find a pill for Humorless Liberal Syndrome.
One of those people unfortunately writes for one of (maybe it is the biggest, not sure) the biggest daily metropolitan newspapers in Australia.
Presidential hopefuls marry family with politics | Daily Telegraph Miranda Devine Blog
She seems to be suggesting that a lengthy, heterosexual marriage is the only quality worth having if you're a prospective president.
So, and again excuse my total ignorance on the subject... but are you all hoping that the republican party eventually ceases to exist? Or becomes such a minority that a democratic party will always win? Or are there republican politicians out there capable of doing the job who won't send the country back to the "good old days"?
INDY500 said:Well, what ruins this joke for some I suppose is the fact that abstinence remains the cheapest AND most effective form of birth control
Romney is the best financed and organized of the Republican candidates and long has been considered the likely nominee. But the former Massachusetts governor and private equity executive has failed so far to take control of the race.
Who would Republicans turn to if not Romney or Santorum? Think of two popular governors, Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Chris Christie of New Jersey, or former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, or even U.S. congressman Paul Ryan, author of a budget plan popular with Republicans.
Well, what ruins this joke for some I suppose is the fact that abstinence remains the cheapest AND most effective form of birth control with the added bonus of STD prevention. Buzzkill I know.
We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.
If you are and adult in a happy, healthy, committed relationships with a person that you love deeply and with whom you share your life - good and bad - whether consecrated by marriage, civil union, cohabitation or otherwise, there is nothing wrong with wanting to have sex with them. It is normal and it is healthy and to suggest to these people that Rick Santorum knows better and that abstinence is the best (and of course this means only women holding their legs closed, because we all get pregnant by way of immaculate conception) because condoms and pills are somehow intrinsically evil is deeply offensive.
It is normal and it is healthy and to suggest to these people that Rick Santorum knows better and that abstinence is the best (and of course this means only women holding their legs closed, because we all get pregnant by way of immaculate conception) because condoms and pills are somehow intrinsically evil is deeply offensive.
I don't think contraception is intrinsically evil.
Nor do I believe contraception is intrinsically a right to be provided at no cost.
What kinda "extremist" does that make me?
One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure.
I can't believe contraception is an issue for the GOP in 2012.
It boggles the mind.
The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.
On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?
Consider the constitutional wreckage left by Obamacare:
First, its assault on the free exercise of religion.
Second, its assault on free enterprise.
Third, the assault on individual autonomy.
This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies, and the individual citizen — should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen.
We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out?
And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure.
Under the terms of Senator Blunt's proposed amendment, some examples might include blood transfusions (opposed by Jehovah's Witnesses), any form of mental health care (opposed by Scientologists), and pretty much everything is opposed by many Christian Scientists. There are also numerous smaller religious sects which oppose various forms of medical care, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, for various reasons. Blunt's bill also would allow health plans to decline coverage for specific services "contrary to" the "moral convictions" of the employer; it wouldn't even have to involve a religious belief as such. Well, at least he's consistent even if his timing is suspect.On a more serious note--what are other medications that employers should have the right to deny coverage out of religious freedom?
yolland said:Under the terms of Senator Blunt's proposed amendment, some examples might include blood transfusions (opposed by Jehovah's Witnesses), any form of mental health care (opposed by Scientologists), and pretty much everything is opposed by many Christian Scientists. There are also numerous smaller religious sects which oppose various forms of medical care, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, for various reasons.
It isn't.
The Obamacare Trifecta - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online
(a summary, I recommend reading the entire column)
No wonder Democrats and their mouthpieces in the media would like to frame this as about contraception.
"One of the things that you don't know about ObamaCare in one of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing," Santorum began telling about 400 people here. "Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and, therefore, less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society. That too is part of ObamaCare -- another hidden message as to what president Obama thinks of those who are less able than the elites who want to govern our country."
From an Aussie/Kiwi perspective, the debate in this thread about contraception is actually mindboggling. I feel like I've walked into a time warp.