Rick Santorum Wants Your Sex Life to Be 'Special'

[Lakhota]

Hilarious: Mr. Rick Goes to the Doctor | The Smirking Chimp

 

[initforme]

"What's brave about not having children? I mean I don't care if people have children, so long as they aren't killing them...but please, tell me how they're "brave" to forego the experience? "


This is an easy one. There are some kooks who think basically all young married children should have children. They are way off in their thinking. Way off. I am seeing more and more young married couples who are choosing not to have children to focus soley on their careers and to save and build up so they can retire. I say if they both want this then this is more honorable, courageous, and brave than having a child they dont want. So they use contraception to prevent the pregnancy. To this I really really tip my hat to them. If you dont want children then dont have them. Its nobody's loss this way. This trend is increasing.

__________________

 

[oreo]

Santorum said the state must abide by such laws as the people approve, and if the people do not like the laws, they must vote them down. That is not the same as saying he thinks that contraception for married couples should be banned.

It's a shame you ppl can't comprehend the English language. You're so self absorbed, everthing comes through your "me" filter and gets all distorted.

You are WRONG--the Federal Government-NOR-the State or your next door neighbor has the RIGHT TO determine how many children you have--DA--DUH!!!

You see this is the HYPOCRISY OF Rick Santorum. He is out there railing against the government overreach in Obamacare/Romneycare--but is perfectly O.K. with State intervention into the most private-personal matters between a husband and wife--and that is why the U.S. Supreme court said NO--States do not have the right to ban birth control contraceptives.

Rick Santorum has EMBARRASSED the Republican party with his statement on this issue. Now because of Rick Santorum--we are not talking about gasoline prices--we're not talking about the economy--we're not talking about government spending- we're not talking about the deficit---we're taking about birth control contraceptives.


Should Santorum win the nomination--Barack Obama has won another 4 years within 4 minutes of Santorum accepting the nomination.

This guy is a total social--freak nut-case--and there is absolutely nothing FISCALLY responsible about him.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Who said married couples should be prevented from using birth control?

I don't remember anyone saying that. Kool aid indeed!

Okay well go back and see about ten times where he said "Contraceptives are dengerous for women..." (notice no specification of young girls etc...?).

Never mind. You're so deeply in the spinning circle you can't see anything the Thought Master hasn't told you....

 

[koshergrl]

"What's brave about not having children? I mean I don't care if people have children, so long as they aren't killing them...but please, tell me how they're "brave" to forego the experience? "


This is an easy one. There are some kooks who think basically all young married children should have children. They are way off in their thinking. Way off. I am seeing more and more young married couples who are choosing not to have children to focus soley on their careers and to save and build up so they can retire. I say if they both want this then this is more honorable, courageous, and brave than having a child they dont want. So they use contraception to prevent the pregnancy. To this I really really tip my hat to them. If you dont want children then dont have them. Its nobody's loss this way. This trend is increasing.

__________________

Uh...riiiiigghhht.

Please link some incident where a couple is targeted for not having children.

Fucking loon. The sad thing is, you probably believe this nonsense.

BTW, you still haven't shown why they're "brave" to not have children.

 

[koshergrl]

Who said married couples should be prevented from using birth control?

I don't remember anyone saying that. Kool aid indeed!

Okay well go back and see about ten times where he said "Contraceptives are dengerous for women..." (notice no specification of young girls etc...?).

Never mind. You're so deeply in the spinning circle you can't see anything the Thought Master hasn't told you....

Can't quote it, can you..

That's okay, I understand.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Santorum said the state must abide by such laws as the people approve, and if the people do not like the laws, they must vote them down. That is not the same as saying he thinks that contraception for married couples should be banned.

It's a shame you ppl can't comprehend the English language. You're so self absorbed, everthing comes through your "me" filter and gets all distorted.

You are WRONG--the Federal Government-NOR-the State or your next door neighbor has the RIGHT TO determine how many children you have--DA--DUH!!!

You see this is the HYPOCRISY OF Rick Santorum. He is out there railing against the government overreach in Obamacare/Romneycare--but is perfectly O.K. with State intervention into the most private-personal matters between a husband and wife--and that is why the U.S. Supreme court said NO--States do not have the right to ban birth control contraceptives.

Rick Santorum has EMBARRASSED the Republican party with his statement on this issue. Now because of Rick Santorum--we are not talking about gasoline prices--we're not talking about the economy--we're not talking about government spending- we're not talking about the deficit---we're taking about birth control contraceptives.


Should Santorum win the nomination--Barack Obama has won another 4 years within 4 minutes of Santorum accepting the nomination.

This guy is a total social--freak nut-case--and there is absolutely nothing FISCALLY responsible about him.

You're the one that's wrong dude.....if you can follow what's really going on it could be that someday our leftist-run Federal government may actually be telling you that you can have only 1 child......like they do in communist china....

It's the liberal press that has been frothing at the mouth about this issue......because they know they can get dupes like you to froth at the mouth too......so good for BOs election doncha know.....?

Santorum is not hypocritical at all.....he was against the Supreme Court for attacking STATES RIGHTS......it was of course PLANNED PARENTHOOD which brought up this issue and pushed the issue based on "privacy".....and to clue you in.... their next step was to push pro-abortion through the courts also based on "privacy"....

"privacy" regarding condoms and abortion is something the activist judges evidently found somewhere in the "living breathing" Constitution....if States can regulate marriage in their own states you would think they would also have the Constitutional right to regulate abortion and condoms....but our Courts are creating all sorts of new "rights"......evidently BO and lefties now think there is a "right" to free contraceptives as well....

The Feds are stepping into areas where they should not be stepping.....these are State issues and should be dealt with on a state-by-state basis.....the more power we send to Washington the less power we retain among our ourselves....

We have already sent too much power to Washington......they are now telling you even which kind of lightbulb you can buy.....or what kind of food your children should bring for their lunch at school....

If the Feds can tell your Church or insurance company today to provide free contraceptives (including abortifacients)....which is a BLATANT trampling of our Constitution......think what they can tell you to do next time....

 

[koshergrl]

That's okay, a progressive wet dream is to be told what they can do, thus eliminating any need for them to think on their own.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Who said married couples should be prevented from using birth control?

I don't remember anyone saying that. Kool aid indeed!

Okay well go back and see about ten times where he said "Contraceptives are dengerous for women..." (notice no specification of young girls etc...?).

Never mind. You're so deeply in the spinning circle you can't see anything the Thought Master hasn't told you....

Can't quote it, can you..

That's okay, I understand.

Here one last time because obviously certain complete f-kin morons can't get it.

"Many Christians have said CONTRACEPTION IS OKAY. IT's NOT OKAY."

Now. For the really, colossally stupid out there (and you know who you are . He doesn't say "Contraception is not okay for young, blond, left handed girls with one green eye".
He said Contraception itself is not okay.
For those of you too stupid to get it, have a Liberal Elitist explain it to you...

 

[koshergrl]

Quotes need to be accompanied by a link, you know.

I will take your word that he said that. It doesn't matter, because you CLAIMED he said that he wanted to ban contraception for married couples.

Saying "contraception is bad" is NOT the same as saying "We should ban contraception for married couples".

Thanks for playing. You obviously don't understand English. Don't feel bad, there are a lot of you out there. You feed off each other.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Quotes need to be accompanied by a link, you know.

I will take your word that he said that. It doesn't matter, because you CLAIMED he said that he wanted to ban contraception for married couples.

Saying "contraception is bad" is NOT the same as saying "We should ban contraception for married couples".

Thanks for playing. You obviously don't understand English. Don't feel bad, there are a lot of you out there. You feed off each other.

Ah. So now that you've been betch slapped on the facts, you just lie. Christian right? I never claimed that Santorum said contraception should be banned for married couples.
So. You're a liar. Not surprising.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh I was referring to the other poster. I'm sorry you intervened in our discussion. I told him to quote it, and you jumped in...

How that constitutes bitch slapping me with facts, I don't know.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Okay well go back and see about ten times where he said "Contraceptives are dengerous for women..." (notice no specification of young girls etc...?).

Never mind. You're so deeply in the spinning circle you can't see anything the Thought Master hasn't told you....

Can't quote it, can you..

That's okay, I understand.

Here one last time because obviously certain complete f-kin morons can't get it.

"Many Christians have said CONTRACEPTION IS OKAY. IT's NOT OKAY."

Now. For the really, colossally stupid out there (and you know who you are . He doesn't say "Contraception is not okay for young, blond, left handed girls with one green eye".
He said Contraception itself is not okay.
For those of you too stupid to get it, have a Liberal Elitist explain it to you...

what's yer point.....?

 

[BluePhantom]

Jeez, I take one day off and look what happens. Ok this is going to be my last post on this topic because those defending Santorum are arguing the same thing over and over and in their failure to successfully defend their position have broken down into character assassination and harping on other shit that isn't related to the thrust of the topic in the hopes of distracting for their deficiencies. I will be thorough in my final statement to assist the logically impaired.

The whole thing here is boiled down to a few things that cannot be denied. 1) Santorum opposes contraception even for married couples. 2) Santorum argues that state governments have the legal right to ban contraception. 3) His votes in favor of funding for Planned Parenthood, Title XX Social Services, and endorsement of abstinence-only sex education means that Santorum favors active government intervention regarding sexual activity and contraception even though he claims he doesn't.

Now if his position is based on:

a) His religious beliefs....then there is no legal basis for his position. The first amendment to the Constitution is clear that religious conviction is not a constitutional basis upon which to set legal policy. We have a freedom OF religion but we also have a freedom FROM religion. So opposing contraception for religious reasons is fine in regard to his personal opinion but government intervention upon that basis is unconstitutional. I would make the argument that the government should not be funding the distribution of contraception as well since it is a practical impossibility to say whose tax dollars are used for what purpose and therefore funding the distribution of contraception means that someone's first amendments rights regarding the free practice of religion are being violated as well.

b) His moral beliefs.....then there is no legal basis for his position as it would violate the 14th amendment regarding the deprivation of the rights to privacy and equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that doing so is unconstitutional and throughout this thread I have provided several links to support that claim.

c) A financial argument regarding increased costs of health care for the pregnant and uninsured....then he has no logical basis for his argument since the proper and consistent use of contraception has roughly between a 75% - 99% chance of preventing unwanted pregnancy depending on which method is used. (1,2) As such the consistent and proper use of contraception has a positive effect on these costs.

d) An argument regarding the spread of disease and costs related to the spread of disease.....then again he has no logical basis for argument since the proper and consistent use of condoms reduces the likelihood of contraction by roughly 85%-95%. (3) As such the consistent and proper use of condoms reduces the spread of disease and the costs associated to it.

e) An argument that only abstinence should be encouraged.....then he has no statistical basis for argument since the research is clear that abstinence-only sex education results in higher rates of unwanted pregnancy and the spread of disease. (links to supporting documentation provided earlier in post #418).



In the end he has no legal argument, he has no logical argument, and he has no statistical argument. Does he have the right to speak his opinion? Yes. Do I and others have the right to look at his opinion and say "wow...you're as stupid as a fucking vegetable and I have a hard time supporting someone who takes a strong position without a legal, logical, or statistical basis"? Damn right we do. Santorum is free to his opinions and has the right to voice them, but that doesn't mean they are logically, legally, or statistically sound.

Now if all that doesn't sink in then it's pointless to continue because I am debating select individuals who lack legal, logical, and statistical understanding and whose views are based upon a bigoted and uncompromising view of society. To speak to them is a waste of effort because they lack the intellectual capacity to clearly and soundly judge and/or comprehend anything but the sound of their own voice.

The rest of this thread is simply a bunch of noise. Arguments about abortion, age of consent, and all the other ludicrous angles that Santorum's defenders have come up with have nothing to do with the topic and are designed to distract from a position they cannot defend and influence debate by attacking the individual character of those who have nailed them to a wall.

End of story. See you on another thread.


1) Birth Control Considerations - Effectiveness of Contraception

2) Birth Control Chart

3) Condom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Jeez, I take one day off and look what happens. Ok this is going to be my last post on this topic because those defending Santorum are arguing the same thing over and over and in their failure to successfully defend their position have broken down into character assassination and harping on other shit that isn't related to the thrust of the topic in the hopes of distracting for their deficiencies. I will be thorough in my final statement to assist the logically impaired.

The whole thing here is boiled down to a few things that cannot be denied. 1) Santorum opposes contraception even for married couples. 2) Santorum argues that state governments have the legal right to ban contraception. 3) His votes in favor of funding for Planned Parenthood, Title XX Social Services, and endorsement of abstinence-only sex education means that Santorum favors active government intervention regarding sexual activity and contraception even though he claims he doesn't.

Now if his position is based on:

a) His religious beliefs....then there is no legal basis for his position. The first amendment to the Constitution is clear that religious conviction is not a constitutional basis upon which to set legal policy. We have a freedom OF religion but we also have a freedom FROM religion. So opposing contraception for religious reasons is fine in regard to his personal opinion but government intervention upon that basis is unconstitutional. I would make the argument that the government should not be funding the distribution of contraception as well since it is a practical impossibility to say whose tax dollars are used for what purpose and therefore funding the distribution of contraception means that someone's first amendments rights regarding the free practice of religion are being violated as well.

b) His moral beliefs.....then there is no legal basis for his position as it would violate the 14th amendment regarding the deprivation of the rights to privacy and equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that doing so is unconstitutional and throughout this thread I have provided several links to support that claim.

c) A financial argument regarding increased costs of health care for the pregnant and uninsured....then he has no logical basis for his argument since the proper and consistent use of contraception has roughly between a 75% - 99% chance of preventing unwanted pregnancy depending on which method is used. (1,2) As such the consistent and proper use of contraception has a positive effect on these costs.

d) An argument regarding the spread of disease and costs related to the spread of disease.....then again he has no logical basis for argument since the proper and consistent use of condoms reduces the likelihood of contraction by roughly 85%-95%. (3) As such the consistent and proper use of condoms reduces the spread of disease and the costs associated to it.

e) An argument that only abstinence should be encouraged.....then he has no statistical basis for argument since the research is clear that abstinence-only sex education results in higher rates of unwanted pregnancy and the spread of disease. (links to supporting documentation provided earlier in post #418).



In the end he has no legal argument, he has no logical argument, and he has no statistical argument. Does he have the right to speak his opinion? Yes. Do I and others have the right to look at his opinion and say "wow...you're as stupid as a fucking vegetable and I have a hard time supporting someone who takes a strong position without a legal, logical, or statistical basis"? Damn right we do. Santorum is free to his opinions and has the right to voice them, but that doesn't mean they are logically, legally, or statistically sound.

Now if all that doesn't sink in then it's pointless to continue because I am debating select individuals who lack legal, logical, and statistical understanding and whose views are based upon a bigoted and uncompromising view of society. To speak to them is a waste of effort because they lack the intellectual capacity to clearly and soundly judge and/or comprehend anything but the sound of their own voice.

The rest of this thread is simply a bunch of noise. Arguments about abortion, age of consent, and all the other ludicrous angles that Santorum's defenders have come up with have nothing to do with the topic and are designed to distract from a position they cannot defend and influence debate by attacking the individual character of those who have nailed them to a wall.

End of story. See you on another thread.


1) Birth Control Considerations - Effectiveness of Contraception

2) Birth Control Chart

3) Condom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whole thing here is boiled down to a few things that cannot be denied.
1) Santorum opposes contraception even for married couples.
that's his right to say so and there are good reasons for believing so
2) Santorum argues that state governments have the legal right to ban contraception.
because this was a very important STATES RIGHTS issue...
3) His votes in favor of funding for Planned Parenthood, Title XX Social Services, and endorsement of abstinence-only sex education means that Santorum favors active government intervention regarding sexual activity and contraception even though he claims he doesn't.
more sex, lies, and Rick Santorum...it meant that he proposed Title XX to counter Title X in a big bill that needed to pass for other reasons....

nice try....

however you overlook one very important thing in your attack against Santorum.....Santorum has a real valid point in speaking against the culture rot in our society via contraceptives.....and despite the spazzo reaction from libtards.....people are listening....

have a good day...

 

[koshergrl]

And..he has never supported legislation that denies people access to contraception. He has voiced his opinion about contraception, and he states he thinks individual states have the right to pass whatever legislation the people will support and want...but he has NEVER SAID HE SEEKS TO BAN CONTRACEPTION.