• 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!

Foster Friess: In my day women used Bayer aspirin for contraception.

And men rely on women to take their pill too, so?
so, the women live with the consequences of their deceit if they failed to after assuring their partner

Young teens, how young are we talking about here,
what does it matter. if they are older teens, would it make any difference

... and doesn't that really come under the umbrella of effective parenting?
you got me. no way have any young, unwed daughters of good parents gotten pregnant

By the way, I'd like to see that study by planned parenthood. Do they mean every 100 times having sex or 4 out of 100 over the course of the sexual relationship?
let us know what you find

I think kids should use condoms; I believe that is reasonable but I'm not going to force it on anyone, or mandate that insurance companies pay for it.
yes, it would be much cheaper for the public to incur the subsequent medical costs of the baby, and the ensuing welfare benefits emanating from the birth of an unplanned child

My God people, how far do you want government in your lives? Tim-
to the point that more good than harm is the result
 
My point went straight over your head didn't it? My point was that it is absurd to believe that abstinence is a practical policy instead of contraceptives in today's time.

Why? How are the two methods dissimilar? You still have to instill the value of either method into the little brains of the kiddies, no? Just coz the school or whatever pushes condoms doesn't mean kids will use them.

Liberal position:

1. Don't want kids having sex.
2. If they do I don't want them getting pregnant.
3. Kids are going to have sex regardless of what Mom and Dad think.
4. Push condom use or birth control pills.

Religious Conservative position:

1. I don't want my kids having sex.
2. If they do I don't want them getting pregnant.
3. Kids are going to have sex regardless of what Mom and Dad think.
4. Teach your children how to safely prevent pregnancy without the use of contraceptives.

Both goals are to prevent pregnancy. Why in all of God's creation do we need government to mandate how we decide to push our moral views towards sex upon our children? Given the above, can someone explain to me how the Obama administration believes this is within its power to legislate?


Tim-
 
so, the women live with the consequences of their deceit if they failed to after assuring their partner


what does it matter. if they are older teens, would it make any difference


you got me. no way have any young, unwed daughters of good parents gotten pregnant


let us know what you find


yes, it would be much cheaper for the public to incur the subsequent medical costs of the baby, and the ensuing welfare benefits emanating from the birth of an unplanned child


to the point that more good than harm is the result

So many assumptions, and conclusory statements that I couldn't even begin to answer them?? It sounds to me that you would prefer that ONLY demographics that are unable to support an unplanned pregnancy would benefit from such a mandate? How very Sanger of you. She too believed like Darwin in Eugenics.. :)


Tim-
 
So many assumptions, and conclusory statements that I couldn't even begin to answer them?? It sounds to me that you would prefer that ONLY demographics that are unable to support an unplanned pregnancy would benefit from such a mandate? How very Sanger of you. She too believed like Darwin in Eugenics.. :)


Tim-
why would we spend our efforts determining how to supplant the efforts of those with the means and understanding, those who can address the issue themselves
a thimble possesses more depth than your position
 
Both goals are to prevent pregnancy. Why in all of God's creation do we need government to mandate how we decide to push our moral views towards sex upon our children? Given the above, can someone explain to me how the Obama administration believes this is within its power to legislate?


Tim-

You're talking two different issues. I don't think we should have the health care bill the way it is and therefore the contraceptive bill would be a moot point for me because it wouldn't exist.

On the issue of pregnacy, teens and young adults WILL have sex. Pandora's box has already been opened on that one, so it IS better to arm our kids with the knowledge and tools of contraceptions rather than just telling them "don't have sex".

In cases where only absitnence was taught, there were higher numbers of pregnancies and STDS. How do you account for that?
 
In her day, women lied about having sex a lot more.

A) Where do you get that fact B) in whose day C) who is always telling young girls they can't get pregnant the first time, they can't get pregnant until they're 14 etc...

The whole point is that Friess implied that if women kept their legs shut they wouldn't get pregnant, which goes against everything else men tell else they want, just look at nearly any magazine advertisement aimed at women, go to any bar etc... Mitchell was able to hold the most poise possible in this situation.
 
My point went straight over your head didn't it? My point was that it is absurd to believe that abstinence is a practical policy instead of contraceptives in today's time.

Okay, but contraceptives aren't going anywhere.
 
Why? How are the two methods dissimilar? You still have to instill the value of either method into the little brains of the kiddies, no? Just coz the school or whatever pushes condoms doesn't mean kids will use them.

Liberal position:

1. Don't want kids having sex.
2. If they do I don't want them getting pregnant.
3. Kids are going to have sex regardless of what Mom and Dad think.
4. Push condom use or birth control pills.

Religious Conservative position:

1. I don't want my kids having sex.
2. If they do I don't want them getting pregnant.
3. Kids are going to have sex regardless of what Mom and Dad think.
4. Teach your children how to safely prevent pregnancy without the use of contraceptives.

Both goals are to prevent pregnancy. Why in all of God's creation do we need government to mandate how we decide to push our moral views towards sex upon our children? Given the above, can someone explain to me how the Obama administration believes this is within its power to legislate?


Tim-

Just to jump in here -- this post confused me. No one is being forced to use birth control.

How does this regulation change that relationship between parents and children?
 
Foster Friess: In my day, women "used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Foster Friess, a prominent backer of Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, raised eyebrows Thursday when he offered up his own idea for a possible contraceptive method: "This contraceptive thing, my gosh, it's so... inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives."

Friess's implication is that if women hold aspirin between their legs, they won't open them.


OMG OMG OMG OMG. Wait for it.... Andrea Mitchell, what could she have said?:eek:

He could have said it with more tact. However, he is essentially correct even though he ignores how people actually behave, and in the real world, effective policy based on behavior and data, not idealism.
 
423056_350464038307303_100000311297276_1133688_2043570176_n.jpg
 
The only practical use of having sex is procreation. Any other use of sex is indulgence, which isn't necessarily wrong, but it isn't absolutely necessary. If someone can't afford a 3 dollar pack of condoms, and doesn't want to take the risk of pregnancy, it would be best not to have sex until such condoms can be obtained.

I disagree, there is a practical emotional component as well. It promotes healthy relationships in committed couples. When there is trouble in the bedroom, there is trouble in the house.

As to condoms, the pill exists because men wanted an alternative to latex. It exists as a convenience for both women and men and puts women in control of their reproductive system. They also don't have to rely on taking a guy into using a condom.
 
The only practical use of having sex is procreation. Any other use of sex is indulgence, which isn't necessarily wrong, but it isn't absolutely necessary. If someone can't afford a 3 dollar pack of condoms, and doesn't want to take the risk of pregnancy, it would be best not to have sex until such condoms can be obtained.

Procreation isn't absolutely necessary either. Just sayin'.
 
A) Where do you get that fact B) in whose day C) who is always telling young girls they can't get pregnant the first time, they can't get pregnant until they're 14 etc...

The whole point is that Friess implied that if women kept their legs shut they wouldn't get pregnant, which goes against everything else men tell else they want, just look at nearly any magazine advertisement aimed at women, go to any bar etc... Mitchell was able to hold the most poise possible in this situation.

I was using a sarcastic one liner to attack the notion that promiscuity is on the rise, and that we have worse sexual morals than people of the past. Pinkie got it. The idea that we, as a society, have more sex and more promiscuous sex, is nonsense. It is part of our romantic view of the past, the same one that makes people think Leave it to Beaver was real and that the 50s were a magical time of prosperity and morality. Human beings have a lot of sex, and we don't, as a rule, let societal expectations stop us. The only difference between now and then is how open we are about thinking that societal rules inhibiting sexuality are bogus.
 
And the best way to 100% prevent obesity is to stop everyone from eating.

I think you're on to something.

Hmmm, I know how to achieve world peace: Everybody stop fighting!

Hmmm, we're low on resources: Everybody stop wasting ****!

Hmm, what about theft: Everybody stop stealing ****!

Hmm, what about rape: Everybody stop raping!

And murder: Everybody stop murdering!

There. I've solved all the world's problems. You can all go home now. Now, what am i gonna have for lunch?
 
I think you're on to something.

Hmmm, I know how to achieve world peace: Everybody stop fighting!

Hmmm, we're low on resources: Everybody stop wasting ****!

Hmm, what about theft: Everybody stop stealing ****!

Hmm, what about rape: Everybody stop raping!

And murder: Everybody stop murdering

There. I've solved all the world's problems. You can all go home now. Now, what am i gonna have for lunch?

That seems an accurate summary of the thought process behind abstinence-only policies.
 
Just to jump in here -- this post confused me. No one is being forced to use birth control.

How does this regulation change that relationship between parents and children?

It doesn't; it was a response to the usual tactic of taking an issue and making about something else. Admittedly, it is easy to do with this particular topic because the issues of religouis freedom and birth control are intertwined.

Tim-
 
Friesse is a sexist idiot. If people decide not to use contraception in their own relationships, fine and dandy. But to even hint that government should prevent everyone from using contraception simply because some people don't is ludicrous. And hinting that government should prevent everyone from using contraception because of the religious belief of some sounds downright unconstitutional.
 
Not a Santorum fan in the least, but I thought the joke was hilarious, some people need to loosen up a little.
 
You should read what he said then. Because he's implying that its impossible to get pregnant if you don't have sex, which is true.

Not 100% true.
 
Not a Santorum fan in the least, but I thought the joke was hilarious, some people need to loosen up a little.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that it was a joke. However, I don't get what the joke is.
 
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that it was a joke. However, I don't get what the joke is.
He was simply implying that the "old school" method of birth control was to not **** around. I think he's horribly out of touch with reality, but I thought the joke itself was humorous.
 
Perhaps Mister Freiss is only relating his own personal experience where the Gates of Heaven never seems quite ready to part for him?
 
A My God people, how far do you want government in your lives?

I want them to not be involved in my sex life whatsoever. Got that, Santorum? Stay out of my pants. If I want to have sex with other men, not your business. If I use a condom, not your business. If a woman gets an abortion, not your business.
 
Hey - I heard that, thought it was pretty damn funny actually. . . my husband didn't get the snide joke - I had to explain how an aspirin between the legs kept you from getting pregnant.


LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom