Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I agree with Santorum. Contraceptives are immoral to use. Abstinence is sin-free and 100% effective.

May as well throw in a Yee-Haw for good measure, old timer.

Those poor, poor abused condoms. Nothing is worse than a society that limits it's production of offspring.

You know, not that the lack of contraceptives in third-world Africa and the widespread starvation of unsupported children/spread of sexual diseases is directly correlated. Get a grip.

Regardless, is it the sort of thing that a government should be producing legislation on? It seems to me that looking out for its citizens in such a specific and invasive way is far more indicative of a nanny state than any degree of social welfare.

The only legislation related to contraception should be a worldwide ban on religious doctrine having any type of effect on political and social policies on them. That is my stance. Religious types tend to ignore actual facts as a rule of thumb.

[Frumple]

Abstinence is sin-free and 100% effective.

I'll give yeh the first one, because its truth or lack of truth is utterly irrelevant, but do you have the numbers to back that second one up? I've yet to see news of any area pushing abstinence based pregnancy prevention actually have a drop in unplanned pregnancies. Most everything I've seen and heard shows a fairly direct correlation between abstinence programs going into effect and unplanned pregnancies rising.

It make it a bit more clear, I can understand how you can say that's true on an individual level, but on a policy or wide-spread level, the latter half of that statement has been fairly well proven to be completely wrong.

On the flip side, there's a pretty direct correlation between the rise of contraceptive availability and the decrease of unplanned pregnancy. For a policy maker trying to reduce the prevalence of unplanned or unwanted pregnancies, the better point of policy is pretty obvious.

[GlyphGryph]

Feelgood, the only source for the "immorality" for contraceptives come from the papists, certainly not from the bible or any non-heretical sects of Christianity. Assuming you're a Christian at all, and not just pulling that from somewhere else.

Lending money, however, IS a sin, is in the bible, and we still allow people to do that, don't we? For the good of society? And conservatives seem to argue it should be unregulated, but Jesus was pretty clear on the whole situation.

Finally:
Abstinence (choosing not to have sex) is not 100% effective, even when considering "perfect use" instead of "typical use" (and numbers you'll find for every other contraceptive method on the market are based around typical use, so that's the most fair comparison). Even at perfect user, it's effectiveness rate as actually slightly lower than perfect use of oral contraceptives, which also protect against instances of pregnancy due to rape. As always combining contraceptive methods (abstinence+oral contraceptive, in this case) is the best way to avoid pregnancy. Fallbacks, you know.

[Leafsnail]

I got Obama-Paul-Gingrich (in something like 65-30-20% respectively).  Paul's contribution comes almost entirely because his "state's rights" position happens to correspond to the least homophobic and he's up for cutting military spending.

People die because they are sick or injured not because they're "uninsured". There's nothing stopping people from visiting an emergency room if they need to.

So America has the worst maternal death rate in a developed country because... uh... its hospitals are just fundamentally awful?  Socialism is killing mothers of the newborn?

[Dr.Feelgood]

(trolling removed)

[Darvi]

And obstructing that end by not copulating is different?

[Leafsnail]

And modern oral contraceptives are the product of early witchcraft.

This argument is truly amazing.  You might find me quoting it at random every now and again.

Women most commonly die during pregnancy or childbirth of infection, pre-eclampsia, hemorrhage, sepsis, and obstructed labor. How does not having insurance cause these deaths?

Because those things can usually be prevented/treated by having access to healthcare.  And apparently almost every other developed country, even ones far, far poorer than America manage to prevent them a lot more.

It's likely that America's high maternal death rate is caused by our complacency towards childbirth.

I'm gonna need an explanation on this since I have no idea what you mean.  Bear in mind that this "complacency" has to be able to explain having, for example, twice the maternal death rate of the UK.

[GlyphGryph]

The act of sex was ordained by God for the purpose of procreation. It’s immoral to obstruct that end by deliberate action. Acts that go against the natural ways of things is considered grotesque by the lord. And modern oral contraceptives are the product of early witchcraft.

You're really going to have to be more specific about your source for these claims. It really does sound a lot like your coming from either a papist or Heretical source here, and I fear for your soul if that's the case.

Acts that go against the natural ways of things is considered grotesque by the lord.

I suppose this explains your stance against health insurance, then, and I suppose I agree. After all, medicine as a field is predominantly focused on denying the will of the Lord. The act of dying is the Lord's way of returning the faithful to the fold, and it is why I am opposed to emergency measures to save people's lives. (I do not believe more basic medications are the same sort of thing, a cast for a broken leg is okay for example).

[Aqizzar]

I didn't want to resort to reaction images, but you guys are starting to force my hand.



This is what I'm coming back to in my thread?  Nuh uh.  Decrying religion is for the Lets Argue About Religion thread, Dr. Feelgood is a self-acknowledged provocateur, and FundiesSayTheDarndestThings really?  Y'all *****s be linkin' to a troll site.

Whether the government is going to outlaw condoms is kind of a general topic of an election maybe, but will only really become more so provided Rick Santorum is still in the Top Three for the Republican nomination come the end of January.  Let's keep it in the here and now for the time being, eh?

[Sirus]

Attention Bay 12:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Thank you.

[Leafsnail]

The religion stuff is mostly a derail, but the healthcare stuff is directly relevant to a recent claim made by a man who is currently second place in the Republican candidacy rate.

[Sirus]

How is FSTDT a troll site?

[Dr.Feelgood]

(trolling removed)

[ILikePie]

I just noticed this thread. I can't be assed to read the whole thing, especially not when the last set of comments are about how it's turned into a religion thread.

Anyway, posting to say that I'm with Gingrich.

[Bauglir]

How is FSTDT a troll site?

Probably because its sole purpose is to get people who disagree with fundamentalism to go, "Oh man, it's so true" and revise their stereotypes even more slightly toward the cartoonishly awful than the real thing, while antagonizing anybody who actually is a fundamentalist toward adopting a more aggressive attitude toward everyone in the thread. Because it's obvious nobody sympathizes anyway, which ultimately leads to reinforcing the stereotype even further because here's another fundamentalist unwilling to listen to reason (because linking the site already showed that people were bashing fundamentalism because it's fun to do, not because it's reasonable).

Linking to that site and expecting a response other than indignation or cliquish agreement is hilariously shortsighted.

Of course, with Dr.Feelgood, you can't tell whether he's trolling us by making ridiculous claims he doesn't believe, or by making claims he does believe followed by a ridiculous disclaimer that he was "trolling us all along".

That said, I already made the only contribution I currently can to the thread way back at the beginning when I declared my likely voting patterns. If I find a 3rd party candidate I agree with, hooray. If I don't, it's either Obama or pointless write-ins, depending on how close things seem (I lean heavily toward pointless write-ins since I'm still confident it's as close to an automatic win for Obama as anything can be, but with this much time for the economy to go even more to shit, you can't be entirely certain).