• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Santorum on CNN

Amigo said:
There is nothing unconstitutional to ban contraception on a state level. But really, what would be the use?
Click to expand...

Well, yes there was something unconstitutional in the banning of the use of contraceptives as the USSC found in Griswold vs. Connecticut; the right to marital privacy.

I cannot think of what the use would be, but Mr. Santorum believes they are a danger.
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,
Click to expand...

Rick Santorum Wants to Fight ‘The Dangers Of Contraception’ | Swampland | TIME.com
 
Gina said:
I cannot think of what the use would be, but Mr. Santorum believes they are a danger.


Rick Santorum Wants to Fight ‘The Dangers Of Contraception’ | Swampland | TIME.com
Click to expand...

I can't believe I am about to say this, however, Santorum is right at least in the case of birth control pills to a point. There are many side effects that women go through with taking the pill. Most are generally mild like weight gain, slight nausea, mood swings, and/or irregular bleeding or spotting to name a few. Other side effects can be major like migraines, infertility, liver tumors, high blood pressure, and decreased bone density to name just a few.

I'm not saying that we should outlaw birth control pills but there is a chance of danger or risk to the woman. Also this does not include condoms, so it depends on what Santorum means by "contraceptives" as a condom would not really fall into this catagory of risk IMO.

My wife could not take the pill because they gave her migraines and high blood pressure.
 
TheNextEra said:
I can't believe I am about to say this, however, Santorum is right at least in the case of birth control pills to a point. There are many side effects that women go through with taking the pill. Most are generally mild like weight gain, slight nausea, mood swings, and/or irregular bleeding or spotting to name a few. Other side effects can be major like migraines, infertility, liver tumors, high blood pressure, and decreased bone density to name just a few.

I'm not saying that we should outlaw birth control pills but there is a chance of danger or risk to the woman. Also this does not include condoms, so it depends on what Santorum means by "contraceptives" as a condom would not really fall into this catagory of risk IMO.

My wife could not take the pill because they gave her migraines and high blood pressure.
Click to expand...

The safety of the pill, in an of itself, was not Santorum's point.

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. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

Again, I know most Presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These how profound impact on the health of our society.
Click to expand...

Read more: Rick Santorum Wants to Fight ‘The Dangers Of Contraception’ | Swampland | TIME.com

I agree, they are not for everyone, but they are ok for the majority of women.
 
Amigo said:
Talk, not do. Liberals always take words out of context.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I used the word do and I quoted him for full context. Santorum believes there are dangers to contraception because it opens sex to being more than about procreation and contraception should be reserved for marriage.

His purpose in "talking" about it, is open to speculation, but often doing follows talking. Why else bring it up?

AdamT said:
The pill isn't just for contraception, either. There are quite a few women who take it for therapeutic purposes.
Click to expand...

Good point and I have been one of them.
 
TheNextEra said:
[...] Also this does not include condoms, so it depends on what Santorum means by "contraceptives" as a condom would not really fall into this catagory of risk IMO. [...]
Click to expand...
What Santorum means is what the Church means -- the only time you should be having sex is when you are trying to make a baby.

If you are not trying to make a baby, you should not be having sex. ANY kind of sex.
 
TheNextEra said:
You fogot that Santorum thinks babies from rape are "gifts from God". Oh yeah, that's going to be a popular view :lamo
Click to expand...

The child doesn't know its a product of rape. And, if you take Santorums comments in context, the child is a gift from God. All children are. I'm not marginalizing how the child was conceived. It is horrible. But Santorums point is that particular child is just as pure as a child born to a perfectly happy married couple. That child could grow up to be a great leader or scientist or anything it wants just as much as the child born to the married couple. Thats his point. Children are being treated like a disease right now and that's wrong. We're acting like these morning after pills cure some horrible disease or abortion is a quick fix for a little problem that presented itself. Its a friggin human being! And we're treating it like its a cancer. I think thats horrible and so does Santorum.
 
Karl said:
What Santorum means is what the Church means -- the only time you should be having sex is when you are trying to make a baby.

If you are not trying to make a baby, you should not be having sex. ANY kind of sex.
Click to expand...

Nope, you're entirely wrong. What Santorum and the Catholic church mean is that married couples should enjoy sex with each other but not attempt to control something that only God should control. Nice try though.
 
AdamT said:
The pill isn't just for contraception, either. There are quite a few women who take it for therapeutic purposes.
Click to expand...

The question is, and I honestly don't know. Is there a way for the medical community to create a pill that would do what birth control does for women therapeutically, but doesn't restrict a womans ability to have children? Anyone answer please.
 
Gina said:
I don't believe I used the word do and I quoted him for full context. Santorum believes there are dangers to contraception because it opens sex to being more than about procreation and contraception should be reserved for marriage.

His purpose in "talking" about it, is open to speculation, but often doing follows talking. Why else bring it up?



Good point and I have been one of them.
Click to expand...

I think he has a valid point about the negatives of contraception but I don't believe(from anything I've heard from him) that he would even want it banned.
 
MarineTpartier said:
The question is, and I honestly don't know. Is there a way for the medical community to create a pill that would do what birth control does for women therapeutically, but doesn't restrict a womans ability to have children? Anyone answer please.
Click to expand...

I don't believe so.
 
MarineTpartier said:
The question is, and I honestly don't know. Is there a way for the medical community to create a pill that would do what birth control does for women therapeutically, but doesn't restrict a womans ability to have children? Anyone answer please.
Click to expand...
Only if God wills it; He is in control.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Karl said:
What Santorum means is what the Church means -- the only time you should be having sex is when you are trying to make a baby. If you are not trying to make a baby, you should not be having sex. ANY kind of sex.
Click to expand...
Nope, you're entirely wrong. What Santorum and the Catholic church mean is that married couples should enjoy sex with each other but not attempt to control something that only God should control. Nice try though.
Click to expand...
The only type of sex approved by the Catholic Church is vaginal intercourse. FYI. Therefore I am correct, and you, by generalizing, are wrong.
 
Karl said:
The only type of sex approved by the Catholic Church is vaginal intercourse. FYI. Therefore I am correct, and you, by generalizing, are wrong.
Click to expand...

I assumed we were speaking of vaginal intercourse. I didn't know when we say sex it means all iterations of sex possibly imaginable. So, what about sex with clown suits on? Bondage? Come on, don't try gotcha crap. You know we were both speaking of vaginal intercourse and, yes, the Catholic church believes that their members should enjoy that type of sex with each other as much as they want. Not just do it to create a child. The Catholic church's stance on contraception is that while you are enjoying sex with your spouse, you shouldn't attempt to stop your body from being able to procreate.
 
Wiggen said:
Well gosh. When a guy says he thinks birth control is evil and that sex should only be for the purpose of making babies - 'the way it's supposed to be' - I think that's pretty definitive.
Click to expand...

ah. so, yes, then. you can't draw a distinctive line between "X is wrong" and "X should be banned by the government"?

Look I understand that many men oppose birth control because of the freedom it gives women. They are much harder to control when they can have sex almost as freely as men can.
Click to expand...

:( sadly, that is not really all that true. birth control has taken away control from women and given it to men, which is why our sexual culture now trends to the the male-preferred-model (many hookups with little or no commitment). you may be interested in some topical reading on the effects. Women lost their ability to insist on men trading commitment for sex, and thus lost their bargaining chip.
 
cpwill said:
ah. so, yes, then. you can't draw a distinctive line between "X is wrong" and "X should be banned by the government"?



:( sadly, that is not really all that true. birth control has taken away control from women and given it to men, which is why our sexual culture now trends to the the male-preferred-model (many hookups with little or no commitment). you may be interested in some topical reading on the effects. Women lost their ability to insist on men trading commitment for sex, and thus lost their bargaining chip.
Click to expand...

Is that how you see the commitment of marriage CP? A woman bargains her body for it?

BTW, that book is anachronistic. Because I can find no better way to put it in my own words, I'm pasting this sentence from a review of the book:

Ms. Sessions Stepp “resurrects the ugly, old notion of sex as something a female gives in return for a male’s good behavior.”
Click to expand...

NY Times Advertisement
 
MarineTpartier said:
Nope, you're entirely wrong. What Santorum and the Catholic church mean is that married couples should enjoy sex with each other but not attempt to control something that only God should control. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

God I hate saying this, but MarineTpartier is right here. The Church doesn't dictate that sex is only for procreation, but preventing pregnancy (whether with condoms or contraception) while engaging in said sex is against god's will. imho, this is a great reason for the church and state to be separate. The government meant should have no say in whether I choose to use protection or not. In this day and age, we don't need any federal programs to fund contraception needs.
 
cpwill said:
ah. so, yes, then. you can't draw a distinctive line between "X is wrong" and "X should be banned by the government"?



:( sadly, that is not really all that true. birth control has taken away control from women and given it to men, which is why our sexual culture now trends to the the male-preferred-model (many hookups with little or no commitment). you may be interested in some topical reading on the effects. Women lost their ability to insist on men trading commitment for sex, and thus lost their bargaining chip.
Click to expand...

This whole statement is an over generalization of the relationships between men and women. You assume that only men care about hookups with little or no commitment and women don't. You assume that only women need commitment before sex. That is a whole lot of assumptions.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
God I hate saying this, but MarineTpartier is right here. The Church doesn't dictate that sex is only for procreation, but preventing pregnancy (whether with condoms or contraception) while engaging in said sex is against god's will. imho, this is a great reason for the church and state to be separate. The government meant should have no say in whether I choose to use protection or not. In this day and age, we don't need any federal programs to fund contraception needs.
Click to expand...

Thanks for being an honest debater bro. Why do you hate saying it though? lol
 
Karl said:
What Santorum means is what the Church means -- the only time you should be having sex is when you are trying to make a baby. If you are not trying to make a baby, you should not be having sex. ANY kind of sex.
Click to expand...

Chaddelamancha said:
[...] The Church doesn't dictate that sex is only for procreation, but preventing pregnancy (whether with condoms or contraception) while engaging in said sex is against god's will. [...]
Click to expand...
Distinction without a difference; the only sex 'allowed' by the Church is the variant -- vaginal intercourse-- that, sans contraception, tends to results in pregnancy.

Put another way, if you don't want to have a baby, you'd better not engage in the only type of sex that the Church approves of. That is effectively "dictat[ing] that sex is only for procreation".
 
Karl said:
Distinction without a difference; the only sex 'allowed' by the Church is the variant -- vaginal intercourse-- that, sans contraception, tends to results in pregnancy.

Put another way, if you don't want to have a baby, you'd better not engage in the only type of sex that the Church approves of. That is effectively "dictat[ing] that sex is only for procreation".
Click to expand...

It would be if the result of every single engagement in vaginal sex resulted in pregnancy. However, it doesn't. I see where you're going with your argument though.
 
Karl said:
Distinction without a difference; the only sex 'allowed' by the Church is the variant -- vaginal intercourse-- that, sans contraception, tends to results in pregnancy.

Put another way, if you don't want to have a baby, you'd better not engage in the only type of sex that the Church approves of. That is effectively "dictat[ing] that sex is only for procreation".
Click to expand...

I get where you are going with your argument, I just think you are trying too hard. You can't boil down the argument to that one line because it just isn't right. If you are engaged in vaginal intercourse for pleasure and the result isn't a pregnancy, it's not a sin. But if you engage in vaginal intercourse for pleasure and protect against pregnancy, that's a sin. I think saying that the Church is effectively "dictating that sex is only for procreation" is an oversimplification of their views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom