candidates against contraception?

OKgrannie · 12-18-2007, 08:41 AM

Do you know what your presidential candidate REALLY supports?

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...ant-you-to-ask

If their statements and actions are indicators, most of the GOP candidates oppose contraception. Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Fred Thompson all define life as beginning at conception or fertilization, in other words when sperm meets egg. (It's worth noting that there's no medical way of knowing when sperm meets egg. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a fertilized egg isn't even considered a pregnancy.) This "life at fertilization" assertion is what is called in the business "dog whistle" politics: a political message only a specific constituency can hear. The reason, of course, to keep the message on one frequency, is that in most cases the issue is deeply unpopular with most of the American people.......

Study after study proves that contraceptive use is the only way to prevent abortion; the places on earth contraception is most available are also where abortion is most rare. According to Save the Children, the countries where infant and maternal mortality are the lowest is where contraception is used the most (because planned pregnancies are healthier pregnancies.) Using abortion rates, maternal and infant death rates, as measures, it's undeniable: the most pro-life thing a president can do is support the right to use contraception and make it widely available. The public knows this. And sometime before the primaries the candidates must be made to state openly whether they support contraception. Because the candidates know those professional pro-life dogs are still listening for the right whistle.

fxashun · 12-18-2007, 09:00 AM

More on Huckabee...
Avoid an "Unintended Presidency” - Know your Republican Choices: Mike Huckabee

I'll still vote for him. I never heard any of those people comparing abortion to the death penalty saying they'll change their pro-killing stance if the justice system changes theirs. So if all they are doing is talking out of their collective arses then they might as well STFU.

And last I checked condoms WERE widely available. And much cheaper than a friggin abortion. If you can afford an abortion, you can afford a pack of Lifestyle condoms. People make themselves sound stupid when reaching like that to try and prove a point.

OKgrannie · 12-18-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

More on Huckabee...
Avoid an "Unintended Presidency” - Know your Republican Choices: Mike Huckabee

I'll still vote for him. I never heard any of those people comparing abortion to the death penalty saying they'll change their pro-killing stance if the justice system changes theirs. So if all they are doing is talking out of their collective arses then they might as well STFU.

And last I checked condoms WERE widely available. And much cheaper than a friggin abortion. If you can afford an abortion, you can afford a pack of Lifestyle condoms. People make themselves sound stupid when reaching like that to try and prove a point.

So you and your candidate intend to criminalize hormonal contraception and IUDs? I don't think people will be happy being limited to condoms.

fxashun · 12-18-2007, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

So you and your candidate intend to criminalize hormonal contraception and IUDs? I don't think people will be happy being limited to condoms.

I don't think that a bill criminalizing those types of contraception will pass. So that's low on my priority list. I'm not gonna allow this one subject to make my decision for me. Considering how bad most of the front runner suck, this is minor.

sgtdmski · 12-19-2007, 11:17 PM

You know what this is nothing more than a bunch of vile crap. Here we have an MD pursuing her pHd. Well I am going to call her on all her fracking education.

How dare she have the gonads to compare abortion and the death penalty. Last time I checked a person confronting the death penalty had the right to appeal, and in most cases this takes at least 15 years. So until abortion face the right of appeal, and the whole appeal process, including the 15 years, there is no comparison. So shut the frack up about the two.

And whereas condoms may be 85 - 98% effective, we know that abstinence is 100% effective. 2 - 15% is quite a gamble, but if that is what she wants for her child, she can have it. And where condoims have been proven to prevent the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, again abstinence eliminates them totally.

And you must love this quote:

Quote:

Mr. Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, believes, “The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred. We should not banish religion from the public square, but should guarantee access to all voices and views” (I believe this translates to: everyone must believe as I do since my hard-core religious convictions and faulty notions are the only way, and although I SAY that we should guarantee access to all voices and views, I have absolutely no intention of considering other viewpoints, let alone act upon them). After all, per Huckabee, “My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them.”

Again here is a highly educated individual showing her bigotry. Or as the elite would label her, trailer trash, for that is exactly what she is.

I take Huckabee fishing with Sawyer, as long as Ms Stacey goes off with Uncle Joe Stalin, for they are one and the same.

dmk

OKgrannie · 12-21-2007, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

You know what this is nothing more than a bunch of vile crap. Here we have an MD pursuing her pHd. Well I am going to call her on all her fracking education.

How dare she have the gonads to compare abortion and the death penalty. Last time I checked a person confronting the death penalty had the right to appeal, and in most cases this takes at least 15 years. So until abortion face the right of appeal, and the whole appeal process, including the 15 years, there is no comparison. So shut the frack up about the two.

And whereas condoms may be 85 - 98% effective, we know that abstinence is 100% effective. 2 - 15% is quite a gamble, but if that is what she wants for her child, she can have it. And where condoims have been proven to prevent the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, again abstinence eliminates them totally.

And you must love this quote:

Again here is a highly educated individual showing her bigotry. Or as the elite would label her, trailer trash, for that is exactly what she is.

I take Huckabee fishing with Sawyer, as long as Ms Stacey goes off with Uncle Joe Stalin, for they are one and the same.

dmk

It is clearly inconsistent to support the death penalty while touting a "pro-life" position.

Abstinence is only 100% effective IF it is 100% practiced, and that has never happened in the entire history of mankind. Abstinence-only education has proved to be ineffective.

As for this quote:
Mr. Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, believes, “The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred. We should not banish religion from the public square, but should guarantee access to all voices and views” (I believe this translates to: everyone must believe as I do since my hard-core religious convictions and faulty notions are the only way, and although I SAY that we should guarantee access to all voices and views, I have absolutely no intention of considering other viewpoints, let alone act upon them). After all, per Huckabee, “My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them.”

it is clear that Huckabee has promoted making some of his religious beliefs a matter of public law, so why would we question the likelihood of his continuing that practice?

Grace · 12-22-2007, 06:09 AM

"It is clearly inconsistent to support the death penalty while touting a "pro-life" position."

Yea, cause we all know a baby who has never seen the light of day, and is innocent before man and God, is the exact same thing as a psyco murderer, who destroys the lives of many with there sick twisted actions.

Ok, maybe it isnt as clear as you thought it was, tell me about how its the same thing again????

dabateman · 12-22-2007, 08:10 PM

It's the same thing because if you are really "Pro-Life" then you are for life at all costs. This includes the life of horrible criminals. All life has with it an intrinsic value. That is a "Pro-Life" stance.

To be opposed to abortion and for the death penalty is to be "Selectively Pro-Life". "Pro-Life" and "Selectively Pro-Life" are not the same thing. Both parties are "Selectively Pro-Life". The Republicans are interesting in saving the ones on the way. The Democrats are interested in saving the ones already here.

People hate the argument that we must solve all of the problems of life already here before we start to worry about the life on the way. I hate it too. I think that we should be focused on saving all life. However, as long as we have the death penalty I don't think we have the moral authority on the life issue to outlaw abortion.

Killing is killing, be it state sanctioned or not.

fxashun · 12-22-2007, 08:30 PM

I'm sorry, but just saying "killing is killing" is oversimplifying things. Some "killing" is accidental, and some is justified. If I'm sitting at home and a guy is coming through my window, I'm gonna kill him. That is entirely different than an abortion, and to nearly anyone else, a homeowner killing a burglar is justified.

And to most people killing a violent murderer is justified. Especially a serial one. And in war, if your country is being invaded, again, either you kill the invading force, or you will be killed or at least be made to suffer.

There are some scenarios where killing is justified and necessary. Abortion isn't one of them.

dabateman · 12-22-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

I'm sorry, but just saying "killing is killing" is oversimplifying things. Some "killing" is accidental, and some is justified. If I'm sitting at home and a guy is coming through my window, I'm gonna kill him. That is entirely different than an abortion, and to nearly anyone else, a homeowner killing a burglar is justified.

And to most people killing a violent murderer is justified. Especially a serial one. And in war, if your country is being invaded, again, either you kill the invading force, or you will be killed or at least be made to suffer.

There are some scenarios where killing is justified and necessary. Abortion isn't one of them.

Abortion is just as justified as killing a convicted murderer in prison. Neither has their independence or freedom. Both are dependent on others to support them. Beyond this, justification for state sponsored killing prevents one from being "Pro-Life" because they put conditions on that life.

A great many things can be justified, but you can't justify killing on one hand and claim to be "Pro-Life" on the other. In reality the only group that I'm aware of that would generally qualify as "Pro-Life" would be the Quakers.

I support killing an intruder to your home. I support limited capital punishment and limited abortion. I tend to not support war out of ideological concerns, but an invasion is a different story. I support taking arms against the invading force. Then again, I don't claim to be "Pro-Life".