MSNBC’s Chris Matthews spins Rick Santorum’s views on contraception
Chris Matthews: Let me tell you what he said. He’s said “My religion should dominate, should trump issues of the Constitution.”…
He was saying, “Bill O’Reilly, you and I are of the same religion, therefore we should deny a woman’s constitutional right to buy birth control or a male to buy birth control.” Isn’t that what he said? We just showed the tape.
Robert Traynham: I don’t think he said that.
~ Newsbusters, reporting on Chris Matthews’ hyperventilation over Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum’s statements on contraception, January 5
(What did Santorum actually say?)

Santorum didn’t say that, but it will be part of MSNBC’s agenda to misinform deliberately.
Chris Matthews is a punk.
You know what would be newsworthy? An example of MSNBC accurately reporting on a topic not made up purely of reciting numbers (although I’m willing to bet they even get those wrong). Must be a slow news day to point out MSNBC reporting twisted hogwash to make a conservative look bad!
Please tell me where in the Constitution it talks about birth control.
do people really watch mslsd anymore? chris matthews is a joke.
Unbelievable. Mr. Matthews needs to get his ears cleaned or something. The man completely distorted Mr. Santorum’s comments. This is horrendous “journalism”, if you can even call it that!!!
I think Mr. Santorum was trying to make a distinction between outlawing aboriton and abortifacients versus outlawing contraception.
Contraception although against his religion is not morally equivalent to the evil of abortion in his religion. Contraception can be left to the conscience of the people, even though a conscience formed by the Church would not approve of its use. So no secular laws are required to regulate contraceptive use unless it is abortifacient. Abortion, on the otherhand, if done for any reason aside from perserving the physically “life” (physical health) of the Mother should be restricted by secular laws.
Also I wonder if was Mr. Santorum’s acknowledgment of his faith or Mr. Santorum’s views of the sanctity of life that concerned Mr. Matthews? If Mr. Matthews simply advocating that Mr. Santorum hide/make his religious views? Would Mr. Matthews feel better if Mr, Santorum simply didn’t reference his faith? Is Mr. Matthew counselling public officials to be deceptive and not fully transparent?
Tyler, all Santorum said had to do with what is possible under states’ rights—what they CAN do, not what they SHOULD do.
Jen, according to liberals, it’s in the same section of the Constitution as abortion. But you’re probably like me… missed that section in our U.S. Gov’t classes in school.
“Tyler, all Santorum said had to do with what is possible under states’ rights—what they CAN do, not what they SHOULD do.”
Agreed, perhaps I read too much in his comments or where I thought the conversation was going with O’Reilly. Nonetheless, I think the issue of abortifacients needs to be raised and brought into the public discussion. The left will raise this issue and the right needs to be prepated to give an honest, open and compelling case for our views/position otherwise the American Public will smell the deception. I don’t think we should run from this issue. I think it can be won as well, but we need to be prepared to discuss it and fight for it. The “Pill”, and not abortion, is the sacred issue for the left, and it is the issue that they clubber the right with.
This pains me to say but I hope Mr. Santorum is not being a Ron Paul when it comes to the issue of the Pill. However, I think Mr. Santorum still has time to clairfy his position on the Pill, and to state a cogent position that is fair, consistent, and precise.
We need to cut-off this firestorm before it happens.
I can’t bring myself to vote for someone who thinks it’s okay for the state to outlaw birth control or consenting sex acts, just can’t do it. I don’t see how anyone can think it’s okay for the state to be that involved in someone’s private life.
Jack, listen to me carefully. HE DID NOT SAY THAT. He said states CAN do that by the Constitution, not that they SHOULD. He made it VERY clear.
Like I said, he thinks it’s okay for the state to be in it’s citizen’s bedrooms. Doesn’t really matter that it’s not a law he would specifically support, it’s not something I can respect. And, it is incredibly hypocritical that he supports a federal ban on gay marriage, even though that would take away the right for states to make that call for themselves. So, federal government can dictate to the states when it’s something that Santorum personally agrees with? That’s kind of ridiculous.
Please provide evidence where Santorum said he wants the states to be in people’s bedrooms.
He specifically stated that there is no right to privacy when it comes to consenting sexual behavior, and that the states can regulate it as they see fit.
http://articles.cnn.com/2003-04-22/politics/santorum.gays_1_statement-on-individual-lifestyles-senator-santorum-bigamy-and-adultery?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
And, he is also kinda silly, because you can’t compare sexual behavior with legal issues like bigamy and polygamy.
Plus, it makes him hypocritical, since he supports a federal ban on gay marriage. He is all about state’s rights to regulate their citizens, unless it’s something he personally has a problem with?
Jack, the state v. federal argument cuts both ways on all issues: should gay marriage be a federal law? Some on the left are demanding it.
Every politician values their own beliefs/opnions. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be running. Even libertarians like Paul who everything to be done at the state level want their view instituted federally. It is just federal anti-federalism viewpoint.
Sorry to break the news to you but the government is already in the bedroom, and perhaps your own. They have promoted the use of contraception, the Pill, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc…. Perhaps the reason you don’t see the government as being in your bedroom is because you already agree with how they are in your bedroom, give or take a few of the issues!!!
Jack, I read the article and he is not advocating anything. He is expressing his opinion on homosexuality. He is a Catholic Christian, and he’s being true to his beliefs AND God’s word. But he’s not saying anything about what SHOULD be done.
Jack, furthermore comparing homosexuality to incest, polygamy, and adultery is appropriate. All of these types of sexual behaviour/relationships were thought to exist outside the state of marriage. And furthermore it was considered that these relationshipsr could not be sanctioned as marriages. All of these behaviors were thought to violate the marriage covenant. It is shocking that so few people recall this.
“Jack, listen to me carefully. HE DID NOT SAY THAT. He said states CAN do that by the Constitution, not that they SHOULD. He made it VERY clear.”
Then he’s an ignoramus (and a very bad lawyer too, apparently). The Supreme Court–the judicial body that has final authority over matters of constitutional interpretation–has ruled that states cannot do those things.
Tyler,
Is the government currently insisting that my wife and I use contraception, abort our next child, get divorced and marry someone of the same gender, etc? They, aren’t so they aren’t in my bedroom. There is a difference between leaving open the freedom to do so and banning it all together. I agree that there should be a ban on abortion, since abortion actually takes away from human rights, but I don’t like to see the federal government used to enforce a viewpoint on the state that restricts liberty for something as personal as sexual behavior.
Courtnay, it’s fine if he shares his views on gays, whatever, I won’t agree with him but he can believe whatever he wants. The issue I have is that he believes that the states have the right to actually dictate personal sexual consenting behavior. Do you really think that’s okay?
“Perhaps the reason you don’t see the government as being in your bedroom is because you already agree with how they are in your bedroom, give or take a few of the issues!!!”
Really? The government is forcing people to use contraception, the Pill, and engage in same-sex marriage and abortion now? I’d ask you if you realize just how insane your implied comparison is, but you obviously don’t. You really, truly believe that the federal government forbidding states from banning contraception and abortion is the same thing as the government forcing people to use contraception and have abortions.
I do think that same sex marriages should be outlawed, that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. But as far as outlawing contraception, Santorum said he did not think states should outlaw it, only that they can.
So do you care about your neighbour, and your neighbours wife or husband? Don’t you care what your neighbour does in his or her bedroom?
I think you do. I don’t think you support incest or polygamy or beastiality. Where do you draw the line? Why should those who wish to engage in beastiality listen to you and respect where you have drawn the line?
Jack, you don’t know if your wife had an abortion or has an IUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For this, you can thank your government and big business.
Some behaaviour is not sexual but is incorrectly classified as such. Relations between two men or to women cannot be sexual. Some forms of behaviour harm others, there are other objective criteria aside from consent that can help society determine if a behaviour is beneficial for the individuals involved and for scoiety in general. Consent does not make all behaviour legal or appropriate.
The Pill can and does kill human beings.
Aside from that I agree contraception is ok – as long as it doesn’t kill another human being.
Tyler, I sincerely don’t care one bit what anyone does in their bedroom as long as it involves informed consenting adults. It isn’t my job, or the government’s job, to police what people do with consenting partners. Animals don’t even have the capacity to consent, so comparing bestiality to homosexuality doesn’t even make sense, and is quite offensive.
I don’t quite get your “harm” argument. Fast food is harmful, smoking is harmful, there a zillion things that can harm you that are perfectly legal. I don’t baby other adults and try to prevent them from engaging in behaviors that I don’t agree with or I think might damage them. I can express my opinion, try to help them make better decisions, but I shouldn’t be able to legally enforce my will. Otherwise all y’all would be vegetarians.
I get nervous when I see posts like yours, because it seems as though you are advocating for a bit of a nanny state, maybe? Do you really think that your life should be scrutinized and made sure you uphold some standard of behavior?
Jack, the government does insist that you can’t beat or rape your wife in the bedroom, and that she can’t do that to you.
Yes, because raping and beating someone is, like, the opposite of consenting sexual behavior.
i hate to break it to all the silly pro death types but the government can and does tell us what to do with our bodies. my state says its the law to seatbelt your body into your car. would you smoke a joint hit a crack pipe or shoot heroin in front of a police station? you could but you would go to jail. you can sit in your bedroom and do drugs or be a grown man or woman having sex with a minor but if the cops showed up you would stop or hide the evidence. this is not directed at anyone in particular……just saying. abortion is the only time women request no government intervention. then they need to stop asking the taxpayers for money to kill their children.
Jack, one of the main ancillary goals of all law is to educate the public, and in some way liberate the people.
Laws in relation to polygamy, incest, rape, adultery, homosexuality, and certain contraceptions are meant to enlighten and liberate people, so they focus and enjoy more productive, good, and healthy activities. No nanny state is required. It is easy to see that abortion, and adultery and certain contraceptions harm another human being. Polygamy and homosexuality also harm another harm being. They deprive their partner the good of a traditional marriage.
Freedom is good, but it shouldn’t be and never has been strictly about unfettered licence to do anything one wants.
also if anybody out here is against gay marriage then let us have our say. im against it and i owe nobody an apology. then you get slammed with being homophobic. wrong.
“Jack, you don’t know if your wife had an abortion or has an IUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For this, you can thank your government and big business.”
You only know what you can trust, dude. I may not be able to ‘know,’ in the Glenn Beck “I’M NOT SAYING HE DID, I’M JUST ASKING!” sense, that my partner has never raped a woman. (“Prove to me that there are no unicorns!”) But I know he hasn’t because he, uh, told me he hasn’t, and wouldn’t do that.
Also, Jack would probably know if his wife had had an abortion, or if she has an IUD. Just because those things are legal and confidential doesn’t mean they’re invisible.
Courtnay – curious – do you think that states CAN prohibit interracial marriage? Obviously the should not, but do you think they can?
Tyler,
So, I should be able to enforce my vegetarian viewpoints on you and everyone else that eats meat? After all, I can make a darn good argument that a meat based diet is unhealthy and damaging to humans and the environment. If you don’t think that this standard should be applied, why or why not?
Should I be able to legally enforce my opposition to alcohol, because it can be horribly damaging to families, individuals, communities, etc?
Where does this legal enforcement end, and where does it begin? I am of the opinion that the less regulation of individuals lives the better. I believe in legally enforcing bans on actions that actively damage another individual, child abuse, rape, abortion, etc… But there has to be a stopping point or rights get trampled on. And it seems it won’t bother you until it infringes on what you want to do. That doesn’t make sense to me. If you wish to prevent others from doing what they wish in their personal lives, then it can be turned around on you pretty easily.
“Jack, one of the main ancillary goals of all law is to educate the public, and in some way liberate the people.”
How Orwellian. We’re liberating and educating people by strictly regulating their most private activities and behaviors. If you were honest, you’d just admit that it’s all about control and indoctrination.
Jack, if two people consent with each other to murder their neihgbour, perhaps yourself, would you absolve them of responsibility for their actions if they carried through with their plans simply because they consented or because they consented in their bedroom.
The bedroom does not magically make all consentual behaviour legal. The bedroom, or location of the behaviour, usually has nothing or very little to do with whether the behaviour or actions are appropriate or legal.
Jack, I agree with you. This is where Pro-Life sometimes goes that I cannot follow.
I really don’t give a single rat’s ass what anyone does in their home as long as they are not harming SOMEONE ELSE. I don’t understand the derailment that happens when we get on this topic.
Jack, if two people consent with each other to murder their neihgbour, perhaps yourself, would you absolve them of responsibility for their actions if they carried through with their plans simply because they consented or because they consented in their bedroom.
No, Tyler. You’re missing the point. If we were actually talking about something similar, the neighbor would also have to consent to being murdered. 9_9
Lol, thanks Alexandra. I missed that sentence.
Tyler, I know my wife hasn’t done either of those things, in the same way I know she doesn’t beat our children or cheat on me every weekend. And if she did go and have a secret abortion? Well, I don’t quite see how it’s the government’s fault that I would be such a crappy husband that she couldn’t talk to me about it. And it’s a bit moot, because I do think that abortion should be illegal, because it involves harm to a non-consenting individual.
But it’s not, Joan, or else I doubt Jack and I would hang around here supporting the Pro-Life movement.
“Jack, if two people consent with each other to murder their neihgbour, perhaps yourself, would you absolve them of responsibility for their actions if they carried through with their plans simply because they consented or because they consented in their bedroom.”
Again, like abortion, you are adding an individual who is not consenting to this in the scenario. It’s missing the point.
Yeah, X, I just have a strong libertarian streak or something. I really dislike the idea of the government trying to dictate individual behavior, when it’s not causing harm to others.
Jack if you could to sufficient degree that eating meat does harm humans and the planet I would be compelled to agree. Indeed, if what you say is true it is your responsibility to ensure that you educate me sufficiently so that I do modify my behaviour, including making it legally mandatory that I do so.
Ditto with alcohol – yes you have the right to make that point and to try to make that a legal reality.
The law has been involved in my personal life already. At one point in my life I wanted to drink when I was under the age of majority, and was restricted from doing so even though I was considered an adult for enlistment purposes.
Alexandria, how would Jack know if his wife had an abortion? Especially an early one.
Jack and xalisae why don’t you think homosexuality is harmful?
Courtnay, it’s fine if he shares his views on gays, whatever, I won’t agree with him but he can believe whatever he wants. The issue I have is that he believes that the states have the right to actually dictate personal sexual consenting behavior. Do you really think that’s okay?
Did you know that incest is illegal in all cases? Not just an underage child and an older family member, but if both (or all) parties are over the age of consent and know full well that the other person is a family member. Speaking of which, just what exactly is the age of consent anyway? In the UK, it’s sixteen. Why is it not sixteen across the board in the US? Certainly there are some sixteen-year-olds who are very mature. And in some states, that is the age of consent, but not others? How do we decide? What about polygamy/bigamy where all parties are aware of the situation? That’s still illegal, after all. And then there’s necrophilia, arguably victimless given that the only party whose consent can not be obtained is dead, after all. But that’s illegal too.
If the government can not regulate sex at all then we couldn’t establish an age of consent no matter how much everybody agreed that we needed one. Nor would we be able to establish legal protections for grieving families whose dead relatives have been violated. Obviously the question of what specific sexual behaviors should or shouldn’t be regulated is one that needs to be approached thoughtfully and with common sense (because yes, there is a clear difference between a gay couple and an incestuous one), but in answer to your question on whether or not the government ought to have power here, the answer is yes, absolutely. The only question is how that power should be applied.
There are only two real “bedroom” issues we disagree on: homosexuality and the use of the pill. Are there any other issues you can think of Jack or xalisae?
Thanks Alice. A very well thought out reply.
If you claim that santorum wouldn’t bring significant faith-based influence to bear why are you so supportive of him and so hopeful that he will become POTUS?
Tyler,
So you do believe that if something can be shown to be damaging enough to the individual it should be illegal? Then we won’t ever agree. I don’t think legality is useful as a “teaching” tool, as you do. I think legal force should be used to protect people from being harmed from others. Again, I am not in the business or have any desire to legally prevent other adults from engaging in behaviors that might be harmful to themselves. It’s when those behaviors go beyond the consenting individuals and harm another is where I think that legality should be involved.
I am just amazed when people who believe in “small” government are so willing to have the government involved in even the most private areas of our lives. Aren’t you guys the ones who want to get rid of social safety nets and leave it to the churches, because the government is overreaching? Why can’t we leave the job of teaching morality to the churches as well, not the government and legal system? You cannot have it both ways.
Alice, I am not arguing that the government can’t regulate sex at all. I am arguing that it should be as limited in it’s application as possible, otherwise it’s infringing on personal liberty. If you are asking whether I approve of consenting behaviors such as adult incest, polygamy, etc, etc, no, I think that’s disgusting honestly. But if you are asking whether I think the government has the right to criminalize these behaviors, than that’s a different issue. I really don’t think they do.
Jack, small government refers to having fewer state run and state paid agencies, not reducing or removing laws that have served our society well.
Small government does mean reducing regulations for businesses, but regulations are far different than laws.
How intrusive can the government said to be if it forbids its citizens to use a pill that kills other human beings when that same government will still allow those same citizens to choose from many other contraceptive methods?
The pill and ru486 are birth control methods and not contraceptives.
What regulations? Things like clean air and water acts? Those prevent damage to children and adults, so I would hope you would be for them.
Maybe I haven’t stated my opinions on birth control where you have seen them, but here goes. I don’t have much of an issue with the pill, because it’s main mechanism is contraceptive but not abortive. It might cause the failure of some zygotes to implant, but so do about a million other things, and I think it’s completely a fools errand to try to regulate every fertile female on the off-chance they might conceive and an embryo might fail to implant because of some of their actions. I am opposed to RU486 because it’s sole purpose is to kill a developing baby.
Though I can see your point with the pill, even though I disagree, but it really doesn’t explain your views. You aren’t just opposed to something that may cause harm to baby without it’s consent. You are also opposed to actions that consenting adults take that either doesn’t fit into your personal moral code, or that you believe are damaging. Which would be fine, except that you think that your opinions should also be legally enforced. That’s where we differ. I dislike plenty of things other adults do to themselves, but I am not in the business of policing them.
Jack: “Why can’t we leave the job of teaching morality to the churches as well, not the government and legal system?”
I don’t have the best answer for this question. But I think it has something to do with practice. What I mean is: what kind of morality is it if it is not practiced in society but is confined to within Church walls. Truth overflows. For example, (I realize what I am about to say is controversial in today’s society) if homosexuality is not biologically driven but is due primarily to environmental factors then is society being responsible in letting homosexuality activity promote itself (and homosexualtiy does need to promote itself from the biological perspective that most homosexuals hold themselves or it will not continue to exist according to their own thinking!)? Moreover, cannot be argued that if homosexuality is a learned behaviour Society is letting people become victimized and brainwashed into thinking that there behaviour is an orientation. We correct all kinds of anti-social behaviour, why should homosexuality be any different? Our youths are generally spent learning the correct modes of behaviour.
Jack, how does the comment “you can’t have it both ways” apply?
Jack: “You aren’t just opposed to something that may cause harm to baby without it’s consent. You are also opposed to actions that consenting adults take that either doesn’t fit into your personal moral code, or that you believe are damaging. Which would be fine, except that you think that your opinions should also be legally enforced. That’s where we differ. I dislike plenty of things other adults do to themselves, but I am not in the business of policing them.”
My issue with the pill is that it can kill the unborn. If people want to use other contraceptive methods that is fine, even though I personally don’t agree with their use. I am not advocating outlawing other contraceptive methods, just ones that have the potential to and do kill the unborn.
So you do believe that if something can be shown to be damaging enough to the individual it should be illegal? Then we won’t ever agree. I don’t think legality is useful as a “teaching” tool, as you do. I think legal force should be used to protect people from being harmed from others. Again, I am not in the business or have any desire to legally prevent other adults from engaging in behaviors that might be harmful to themselves. It’s when those behaviors go beyond the consenting individuals and harm another is where I think that legality should be involved.
Well-said.
Tyler, I don’t think homosexual relationships are harmful for the same reason I don’t think my relationship with my fiance is harmful. They’re not. They’re just relationships, and even though I don’t think homosexually makes a single lick of biological sense and seems counter-productive to the individuals in question, it’s really none of my business.
” I don’t have the best answer for this question. But I think it has something to do with practice. What I mean is: what kind of morality is it if it is not practiced in society but is confined to within Church walls. Truth overflows. For example, (I realize what I am about to say is controversial in today’s society) if homosexuality is not biologically driven but is due primarily to environmental factors then is society being responsible in letting homosexuality activity promote itself (and homosexualtiy does need to promote itself from the biological perspective that most homosexuals hold themselves or it will not continue to exist according to their own thinking!)? Moreover, cannot be argued that if homosexuality is a learned behaviour Society is letting people become victimized and brainwashed into thinking that there behaviour is an orientation. We correct all kinds of anti-social behaviour, why should homosexuality be any different? Our youths are generally spent learning the correct modes of behaviour.”
Well, that’s the issue than. You want to impose your church’s specific moral code. You don’t want to teach it, you would like it imposed, with penalties for not following it.
I don’t have a problem with Christians/Muslims/Jews/Rastafarians/whatever religion you can think of teaching their values. Shout them from the rooftops, pass out pamphlets, teach your heart out. That’s cool. I do have a problem with people insisting “This is my morality, this should also be your morality. I insist, and I will legally force you to follow it.” That kind of thinking was responsible for racism, sexism, children being treated like garbage, etc. The way I view our great country isn’t that people are restricted to what the Catholic church thinks about gays, or what that protestant minister in that church over there thinks about gays. We can all have our opinions, and the law shouldn’t be enforcing your personal opinion about a personal behavior that isn’t harming non-consenting parties. For example, I hate drugs but I don’t think they should be illegal. There are much better ways to encourage and help people act in ways that are not damaging them than using the legal system to bully them into it.
id just say this…since this blog is about abortion i think people here who are pro life will agree. i think we all have a problem with people going to their bedrooms to make children they will kill. more and more women are using abortion as birth control. its no longer uncommon to hear a younger woman say ” oh ive had 7 8 or 10 abortions.”
I agree 100% Heather. Children shouldn’t have to die for the actions of their parents.
sherry shepard from the view once commented ” ive had so many abortions ive lost count.” sherry claims she is now pro life but admitted that shed voted for obama.
We can all have our opinions, and the law shouldn’t be enforcing your personal opinion about a personal behavior that isn’t harming non-consenting parties.
I guess we have different definitions of which activities harm others.
Also, Jack there is not a world where values do not exist. I think the problem with your question is that you envisioned a situation where the government could operate in some neutral free zone, as some kind of neutral moderator of the individuals. I don’t think this accurate. The decision by the government to make laws or to not make laws impacts the lives of citizens. Your view of allowing people to freely have drugs, commit adult incest and promote homosexuality is a world that I don’t want to live in. See my fellow human beings live lives that I think is harming them bothers me and makes me want to help them out. If that is a nanny state, I guess I am pro-nanny state. Jack some of your views make you sound like a libertine rahter than a libertarian.
yep we can agree on that. sad to say that a lot of girls around my town have also said the same. one girl with a crack addiction i used to know was smoking crack while pregnant. i asked her why she was using drugs and drinking while pregnant. her reply? “im having an abortion.” i asked her if shed ever had one before. she replied ” are you kidding? too many to count.” she did not abort and thank God the baby was born healthy but shed lost 3 other kids to the state and now her husbands sister is raising her last. so sad;(
my older friends husband is a liberal and he always watches chris matthews. he is not pro life at all so one day i just shot him a question. i asked ” what do you think about women who become unstable mentally after abortion? he replied ” it had nothing to do with an abortion. those women were nutty to begin with and were better off aborting.”
“I guess we have different definitions of which activities harm others.”
No, I think we would probably agree more than you would think. I simply don’t agree with forcing adults to refrain from behaviors that damage them. You shouldn’t be able to make me stop smoking cigarettes for example, possibly even throwing me in jail depending on how far you want to take this legality business. How that actually helps society OR me, the individual in question, you haven’t explained. Seems to me that it will overburden the system and won’t solve the problems that you think it will.
“Also, Jack there is not a world where values do not exist. ”
Never said there is a world where values don’t exist. However, there is a world where everyone doesn’t share the same values, we actually live in that world.
” I think the problem with your question is that you envisioned a situation where the government could operate in some neutral free zone, as some kind of neutral moderator of the individuals. I don’t think this accurate. The decision by the government to make laws or to not make laws impacts the lives of citizens. Your view of allowing people to freely have drugs, commit adult incest and promote homosexuality is a world that I don’t want to live in. See my fellow human beings live lives that I think is harming them bothers me and makes me want to help them out. If that is a nanny state, I guess I am pro-nanny state.”
Well, see, these things already are happening, you already live in that world. If I were so inclined, I could have some heroin and go gay it up with some guy right now, and the law isn’t going to and can’t stop me. I don’t know a single drug addict where legality was remotely an issue, I don’t know any gay people who would magically become straight if sodomy laws were enacted. I think that criminalizing behavior, in these cases of adults hurting themselves, is actually perpetuating the problem. Some one tries drugs, realizes they are in over their head and are getting addicted, and can’t get help because of fear of jail. A teenager struggling with homosexual urges (in your scenario, I will assume it’s a choice or learned, even though I don’t believe it is) will most likely not get help with his/her actions if they fear they are going to get thrown into jail for it.
“Jack some of your views make you sound like a libertine rahter than a libertarian.”
I get told this, and I think it’s kind of funny. I am not remotely a libertine. I believe saving sex for marriage is a great goal, and I wish that I had done so. I would hope that every single person in the world would avoid getting into drugs including alcohol, I know from personal experience it’s a really bad idea. Just because I don’t think that criminalizing certain behaviors is a good thing or effective thing doesn’t mean I agree with even a single one of the behaviors (though I don’t have any problem with gays).
@Jack: what about the government criminilizing assisted suicide? Last I checked, it’s legal in 3 states. The government has to step in at times, even in cases where there are consenting adults. Is this good for society?
Doug, what if the person who decides to pursue the gay lifestyle is not a stranger but is close friend or a family member you cared deeply about? Would your views change?
The same goes for the alcoholic and drug user. Would you not help or intervene to help an alcoholic friend or relative?
If you feel that in these famalial situations you would have a responsibility to help, why wouldn’t you help a stranger?
Criminal laws need not carry weighty penalties. Perhaps there is another alternative to criminalizing such behaviour.
I also just want to correct something you said earlier. In one of your earlier posts you seem to indicate that it would take a poor husband to cause a woman to commit adultery or to keep abortion secret. I just want to make sure, you were just using hyperbole in your example and that you do recognize that many victims (husbands and wives) of adultary and (husbands) of secret abortions.
The last sentence of my previous post should’ve concluded as follows:
I just want to make sure that you were just using hyperbole in your example and that you do recognize that many victims (husbands and wives) of adultary and (husbands) of secret abortions are innocent.
I’m not Doug, lol. :)
“what if the person who decides to pursue the gay lifestyle is not a stranger but is close friend or a family member you cared deeply about? Would your views change?”
My sister is a lesbian. Out of my family of child beaters, pedophiles, and ex-junkies, she is by far the most well-adjusted and happy member. And no, if my kids or someone else in my family were gay as well, it wouldn’t change my view. I actually used to be very anti-gay, to the point of being a raging bigot, but I grew up and realized I was not being a good person.
“The same goes for the alcoholic and drug user. Would you not help or intervene to help an alcoholic friend or relative?”
Of course I would, and I would help any person not related to me as well. I’m a recovering addict, I would give my last dime and all my time to help someone out of that life, and I have. I simply don’t believe that criminalizing is helping.
“Criminal laws need not carry weighty penalties. Perhaps there is another alternative to criminalizing such behaviour.”
Well, that I can agree with. I think that for a lot of these “dangerous personal behaviors” type of crimes, there are a lot of things we as a society could be doing other than prison sentences to help.
And yeah, it was hyperbole. I don’t blame the victims. I do question why you think that the government should be involved in my marriage if my wife was unfaithful, or using birth control I didn’t approve of, what do you think the government could/should be doing? And how is it the government’s responsiblity and not mine and my wife’s to fix our marriage?
Jack and Tyler… enjoyed your debate. You both presented your arguments well. I agreed a little with you Jack and Tyler I agreed a little with you. I think there was truth and validity to both your viewpoints. Now I know I sound like a pro-abort saying that, lol, since your viewpoints were opposed but there you have it.
Well done. Really.
yes i agree with both of them too sydney as i was reading their posts while watching americas most wanted on wifetime.
i was going to say you guys never mentioned prostitution. i lived in las vegas for a while and that is something i doubt will ever end. the cops can grab a few but its all around you in sin city. girls go missing in vegas all the time.
Eew. Lifetime. Talk about misogyny…
i think to cover it all sexual sin will kill us. my former gay friend is hiv positive. some people say abortion was at 50 million others now say 75 million or 90 million.
x lol i know thats cc’s word of the week;)
Thanks Sydney and Heather.
Prostitution is kind of a hard one, Heather. I don’t think what we are doing now is working at all, and I wonder if legality would solve at least a couple of the issues. Like, when I was on the streets I think over half of the female prostitutes I knew were underage, and ALL of the male prostitutes were underage. STDs are really, really bad and common too, considering most of them were IV drug users as well. I think legalizing and regulating it might help those aspects of it.
Even if it remains illegal, there’s got to be something more to be done about it. Women are literally treated like trash in the sex industries, as far as I have seen. I think working on the drug problem will help a bit, since drugs are a really common reason for people being in that lifestyle. It’s a hard one.
“Alexandria, how would Jack know if his wife had an abortion? Especially an early one.”
Tyler, have you ever known a woman who had an abortion? They aren’t debilitating but they aren’t exactly invisible, like I said. Co-workers wouldn’t know but a husband? She’d be bleeding a LOT, most likely, with some serious cramping. She would probably not be able to have sex for two weeks. It’s not like you just go out and get one on your lunch break and then go back to life as usual. Her husband would probably know something was up.
misogyny but they dont want to include dead aborted baby girls from abortion or forced abortion in china.
yeah jack its a huge problem in vegas but there is even a seedy part of town not far from where i live. of course you hear the buzzing that the hookers hang out there and a man can get anything for 20 bucks. these women are drug addicts and many stand out there with the clothes on their back and many have rotted teeth or none at all. what can one do? they say if you dont want help it wont work. and jail lol. these girls get right back to the streets upon release.
off to bed….nite to all.
Alexandria: “Tyler, have you ever known a woman who had an abortion? They aren’t debilitating but they aren’t exactly invisible, like I said. Co-workers wouldn’t know but a husband? She’d be bleeding a LOT, most likely, with some serious cramping. She would probably not be able to have sex for two weeks. It’s not like you just go out and get one on your lunch break and then go back to life as usual. Her husband would probably know something was up.”
Are there any husbands alive who haven’t had to go two weeks without sex?!?!!(You mean headaches don’t spontaneously occur after putting children to bed!?!) If a woman doesn’t want to talk, can a man ever get her to chat. Is there a woman alive who doesn’t value a private washroom?
Alexandria, furthermore you are basing your some type of “average” post abortion experience. There are kinds of post-abortion experiences. You also didn’t distinguish between the post-aborrtion experiences due to medical abortions versus surgical abortions.
Alexandria, furthermore you are basing your argument on some type of “average” post abortion experience. There are many different kinds of post-abortion experiences.
Moreover, you also didn’t distinguish between the post-aborrtion experiences that are due to medical abortions and the post-abortion experiences due to surgical abortions.
Sorry I hit the post button twice. I thought I stopped the page from posting the earlier post, but I guess not.
Why are you guys still talking Santorum? Mitt is your guy this year.
And he reminds me a LOT of Jon Kerry vs Bush.
I’m sick of RINOs picking my candidates.
Ex-GOP: I have listened to Romney’s speech after Iowa. It was pretty good. he does seem like a decent man. I just hope his decision to become pro-life will stick. He is very cool under-pressure, but it takes time to appreciate his style – I am not sure if the election period is long enough so that the rest of the American Public will get to know him.
LOL
I loved the stunned reaction of Traynham to Matthews’ crazy ranting.
Traynham shakes his head and looks at Matthews like he is completely nuts.
Funny!!!!!!
Jack, every individual votes for or against a law based upon their personal beliefs. Laws restrict actions. We all get a vote and live within the law. It would be kinda stupid not to vote for laws that you thought were best for society wouldn’t it.
“If you are asking whether I approve of consenting behaviors such as adult incest, polygamy, etc, etc, no, I think that’s disgusting honestly.”
That is a strange combination. Adul incest and polygamy are disgusting to you but homosexual sex is not. What about same sex incest, is that disgusting to you?
That was quite a look of amazement Hippie. Funny.
“That is a strange combination. Adul incest and polygamy are disgusting to you but homosexual sex is not. What about same sex incest, is that disgusting to you?”
Do you not get that I am not going to make something illegal based on if I find it icky? I actually do think that gay sex is gross, it actually makes me a bit sick to think about it. It still isn’t my business, and my personal thoughts about it don’t dictate what other people do in bed.
i bought that movie ” milk ” starring sean penn. 4 bucks at the dollar store. i know penn is a lib and all but i wanted to see the movie. i had to turn my head at the gay sex scenes and kissing. it was sick. the movie was actually a flop.
“Are there any husbands alive who haven’t had to go two weeks without sex?!?!!(You mean headaches don’t spontaneously occur after putting children to bed!?!) If a woman doesn’t want to talk, can a man ever get her to chat. Is there a woman alive who doesn’t value a private washroom?”
Tyler, of course men go two weeks without sex. After EITHER a medical or a surgical abortion she is likely to be bleeding heavily for quite some time, in a way that is not entirely easy to hide. If she is cramping and bleeding AND refusing sex constantly with no real ‘reason’ then her husband MIGHT know something is up. Obviously this depends on their relationship.
“Alexandria, furthermore you are basing your some type of “average” post abortion experience. There are kinds of post-abortion experiences. You also didn’t distinguish between the post-aborrtion experiences due to medical abortions versus surgical abortions.”
I am fairly certain I know A LOT more about post-abortion experiences than you do, Tyler. Medical and surgical. It would probably be harder to hide a medical abortion but they both come with their telling complications. When I miscarried it was roughly the same and my partner definitely knew, without me needing to give him the lowdown on the specific details, what was going on, how I was doing each day. There are all kinds of abortion reactions and experiences, but generally speaking it is easier to conceal, say, infidelity than an abortion. Yet you did not say to Jack that he doesn’t know if his wife is cheating on him, even though adultery is also not illegal. It’s a melodramatic argument that means basically nothing because a man who has no idea that his wife has had a legal abortion probably would also have no idea if she had an illegal abortion. It rests on the assumption that men can not and do not trust women – not “women in general” but THEIR WIVES, the women they have partnered themselves with for eternity – and need THE LAW to enforce the fair terms of that partnership in even the most intimate of ways. I know my partner has never raped someone just like he knows I did not have an abortion. Jack knows his wife hasn’t had an abortion just like she knows he’s not beating the crap out of their kids while she’s at work. There are better arguments against abortion than “your wife could totally get one without you even knowing! Maybe she did!”
Your argument seems to basically be, “If a husband and wife don’t sex and already don’t talk about anything because them womenfolk just clam up and there ain’t no gettin inside their heads, then a woman can be up to anything and her husband won’t know!” Yeah, if a husband and wife live as strangers rather than as intimate partners, she could be having abortions. He could be cheating. One of them could be addicted to prescription painkillers and the other could spend nights feeding a porn obsession. That’s really a problem with their relationship, and while none of those things that they’re hypothetically doing are in any way good, it’s not like the existence of those things is what makes them the problem in the relationship. If a relationship is functional and healthy those things may be problems that the couple struggles with, but the problems will not go undetected.
Tyler – the nice thing about Mitt is that he, at one point, has supported every single political position imaginable – so everybody can find something to like about him. Pro Choice? He’s got great speeches on that. Pro Life? That too. Government health system? Written in print (at least the hard cover). Against government health control? Just buy the paperback version.
It is a beautiful plan!
Reminds me of a joke about a doctor who correctly guessed every babies gender. He would tell the parents one thing and write down the other gender in a book.
Cover all your bases.
I get it Jack. And I can appreciate your position. It is very liberitarian. I also appreciate why it is legitimate for politicians to cast a vote making laws restricting behaviours that their constituents deem detrimental to society. Either position has just as much credence and a place in the public discussion.
What is so funny about the Chris Mathews bit is that Santorum is actually taking your side (the liberitarian position) about contraception and saying that he would not outlaw it even thought he is personally against it; and Mathew’s is spinning that into him wanting a theocracy ruled by his church’s teachings. That is some serious leberal mind-bending going on in the head of Chris mathews.
Alexandria,
I agree there are better arguments against abortion (funny that you should too). Obviously the best argument against abortion is that a woman is killing a human being…but for whatever reason that one hasn’t sunk in yet with pro-aborts!!!
BTW, I did raise the issue of adultery to Jack, and he responded – please see my earlier posts.
The issue with secret abortions is not just that the “wife” keeps them secret (Jack brought up his wife, I didn’t) but that the pro-aborts who work at the clinics counsel women to keep it a secret, and tell women, including wives, that it is okay to keep such a procedure secret.
For example, tubal ligations and vasectomies can also be kept secret from one’s spouse/mate; however, most medical practitioners advise telling or consulting their partners first before they go through with the procedure.
The problem with secret abortion is not just that they are secret but that doctors, and pro-aborts “advise” women to keep it a secret.
“Tyler, I know my wife hasn’t done either of those things, in the same way I know she doesn’t beat our children or cheat on me every weekend”
Wrong. Unless you are with her, having her tracked or obsessively calling her, there is no way you would know this, Jack. At the end of my first marriage, I met with the woman who was having an affair with my husband and I asked her how long she had been sneaking around with my husband (I thought for about 6 months). She replied, “Ten years.” Also, not all children being mistreated by an abusive parent tell the other parent what is going on or are even old enough to do so.
“If you are asking whether I approve of consenting behaviors such as adult incest, polygamy, etc, etc, no, I think that’s disgusting honestly.”
So you would be okay with a parent having sex with their consenting adult child (age of consent varies from 16-18) as long as nothing physical happened before that age? You don’t think that parent had some control over that adult child that would affect the adult child’s ability to truly consent? Also, shouldn’t we consider the affect on children of polygamists and think about their rights?
My first marriage was annulled by the Church. Was I truly capable of freely consenting to marry a man that had threatened, beaten, manipulated, verbally abused and controlled me even though I was over the age of consent?
Chris Matthew old boy, I think that tingle that goes up your leg when you listen to Obama has zapped your brain.
Ex-GOP
Gottcha,
How long have you been waiting to tell that joke?
That is hilarious – I actually did a search for the word “tingle” on this thread last night to see if Mary had stopped by. Like an alcoholic being drawn to a bar, good ole’ Mary can’t see Chris Matthews within tingling.
Love it.
Tyler – I was against that joke before I was for it.
“If you are asking whether I approve of consenting behaviors such as adult incest, polygamy, etc, etc, no, I think that’s disgusting honestly. But if you are asking whether I think the government has the right to criminalize these behaviors, than that’s a different issue. I really don’t think they do.”
This is the whole part of Jack’s quote that I was responding to above.
Excellent post Praxedes.
BTW, where is that name from?
Jack’s support of individual liberty is based on the pop-culture (Madonna, Lady Ga Ga) idea of liberty. It is hard to ween people away from that concept of liberty to the true concept of liberty – doing what is right.
Ex-GOP
Doesn’t matter – either way you have revealed your true colors.
Tyler – yes, I’m a fan of consistency – I didn’t vote for Kerry either. I think that people believe things in life, and if they constantly change those views in hopes to appealing to other people, I think that’s a problem. A big problem. If my true colors are wanting somebody to say what they mean and mean what they say, well yes, consider me labeled.
“I agree there are better arguments against abortion (funny that you should too).”
Why is that funny?
I don’t generally think that advising spouses to keep medical info from each other is a good idea – on that we agree.
Praxedes – wrt this:
“Wrong. Unless you are with her, having her tracked or obsessively calling her, there is no way you would know this, Jack.”
That is the point! It’s weird to single abortion or IUDs out as one area where THE WOMEN MAY BE SNEAKING AROUND WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE. Relationships take trust and yeah, you need to exercise reasonable discretion, but you can’t know ANYTHING for sure.
Alexandra, are you pro-abortion or pro-life?
EGV 11:19am
Glad you appreciate my humor to the point of actually searching it out! I couldn’t be more flattered.
However, can you explain your comment that I can’t see Chris Matthews “within tingling”?
Sorry Mary – I was so excited I was typing too fast…
without tingling – you can’t see him (Matthews) without tingling in excitement to post about his tingling.
i met a guy who stood with us in front of the abortion clinic and his wife snuck and aborted. he never would have known had he not found her home going instructions ripped up in the trash. he told me that made it her 3rd abortion. then he confronted her with the papers asking “why again”? her reply was ” just please leave me alone im numb.” he divorced her.
Ex-Gop,
Thank you for the uh,….clarification. Whatever.
Anyway, I’m sure you would agree the tingles had only to travel a very short distance past his leg to affect his thinking processes.
matthews is a corn ball.
Quite honestly Mary, I don’t think about Chris Matthews enough to think about his man parts.
I am pro-life. So why is it funny? You didn’t answer.
“Wrong. Unless you are with her, having her tracked or obsessively calling her, there is no way you would know this, Jack. At the end of my first marriage, I met with the woman who was having an affair with my husband and I asked her how long she had been sneaking around with my husband (I thought for about 6 months). She replied, “Ten years.” Also, not all children being mistreated by an abusive parent tell the other parent what is going on or are even old enough to do so.”
I… know that. And I am sorry about your husband, he is an absolute jerk. I don’t “know” as in it can’t be possible. I know as in I know her and trust her. Actually, I was really, really paranoid when we first got married and used to check her phone and come home unexpectedly to “catch her” at doing nothing wrong, so there is that. Luckily, I grew out of that. I can’t spend my life worried about this stuff, if there are no red flags.
“So you would be okay with a parent having sex with their consenting adult child (age of consent varies from 16-18) as long as nothing physical happened before that age? You don’t think that parent had some control over that adult child that would affect the adult child’s ability to truly consent? Also, shouldn’t we consider the affect on children of polygamists and think about their rights?”
I don’t think parent-child incest, where the parent raised the child, is ever truly consensual. My dad abused me my entire childhood, past the age of consent, it didn’t make it automatically consensual when I was old enough but didn’t do anything about it. It just meant I was too traumatized and beaten down to do anything about it. From what I have read about it, it’s not a situation where consent is exactly possible. It’s similar to situations where one person is sober and the other drunk. There can be “consent”, but it’s not consensual. That situation should be regulated like any other abusive situation.
What do you think should be done about children of polygamists, if you are worried about their rights? I am worried about the children of single mothers, but I don’t want to make it illegal or take the kids away.
“My first marriage was annulled by the Church. Was I truly capable of freely consenting to marry a man that had threatened, beaten, manipulated, verbally abused and controlled me even though I was over the age of consent?”
Like I have said, over and over, that’s abuse. That’s not okay and should not be legal. People need to be protected from others who would do them harm. Of course I wouldn’t want a guy to be able to treat women like that legally. And I am sorry you went through it.
“Jack’s support of individual liberty is based on the pop-culture (Madonna, Lady Ga Ga) idea of liberty. It is hard to ween people away from that concept of liberty to the true concept of liberty – doing what is right.”
Right by whose standards? Yours? Or mine? Or some other person who both of us disagree with?
EGV 1:06PM
Neither do I EGV, I was referring to his rear end.
“Of course I wouldn’t want a guy to be able to treat women like that legally.”
Legalized polygamy would just add to the poor treatment of women.
“What do you think should be done about children of polygamists, if you are worried about their rights?”
I don’t think polygamy should be a legal choice in the first place. I believe legal marriage should always remain between one man and one woman.
“BTW, where is that name from?”
Tyler, the name Praxedes is the saint’s name I picked when I was confirmed as a teenager.
Jack, although you are very genuine, and obviously have a lot of personal experience and have risen above difficult circumstances something doesn’t ring true in your responses. There is some disconnect, some faulty logic but I haven’t found a good way of expressing it. As soon as I do I will let you know.
The standards are the eternal standards of the 10 commandments, the Christian Religion, set by God.
I appreciate that you are pro-life and not Christian. I understand you don’t want harm to come to the unborn baby, but I don’t understand why your standard of harm is so high that harm resulting in death is the only time you think that government intervention is warranted. I think Alice and others have pointed out scenarious where the standard of harm should not be death but some lower level lest very vile crimes such as incest be permitted.
Alexandra I thought you were a pro-abort that is why I though it was funny that you thought there was better reasons against abortion.
To be honest, Tyler, even when I supported the right to abortion I would have found your argument unconvincing, alarmist, and ill-conceived. So I probably still would have said that there were better arguments against abortion.
“The standards are the eternal standards of the 10 commandments, the Christian Religion, set by God.
I appreciate that you are pro-life and not Christian. I understand you don’t want harm to come to the unborn baby, but I don’t understand why your standard of harm is so high that harm resulting in death is the only time you think that government intervention is warranted. I think Alice and others have pointed out scenarious where the standard of harm should not be death but some lower level lest very vile crimes such as incest be permitted.”
I do have a problem with biblical law being used as the standard. I can’t find anywhere in the Bible where it says that it’s not okay to beat your kids, for example. Not trying to be disrespectful of your religion, my mother just used the Bible to justify some horrific beatings. And I can’t find anywhere that speaks against what my father did either, though I suppose some verses could be interpreted that way.
I don’t set the level of harm at death, it is lower than that. You should not be able to harm another person without their consent. What my parents did to me should never be legal. What Praxedes’s husband did to her should never be legal. You shouldn’t be able to steal from your neighbor, for a less extreme example. What I don’t agree with is that legal force should be used to make people’s decisions involving themselves and other consenting parties.
Jack, it appears you have changed your tune and now recognize that there are times (Parent-Child incest)when the Government should have laws that restrict what goes on in the bedroom!!! Soon you will see that incest is wrong no matter what the age of the participants are. (I am more than a little shocked that I even have to say stuff like this.)
Ay Carumba!
Jack so is assisted suicide ok in your books?
Jack you are sort of correct that the Bible doesn’t speak on every “specific” instance of wrong-doing. That is why the Catholic Church has spent 2000 years thinking and explaining what the Bible means in light of Jesus’s teachings.
If you take a more spiritual reading of the 10 commandments you will find that some of the commandments such as the ones about coveting can be applied to children and the proper treatment of children. The commandment to Honor your Mother and Father has implications for how Parents should treat their children.
We also have the teaching of Jesus on how we should not harm “little ones”. If someonone has internalized the commandment not to kill, or if you dwell on the meaning of all the commandments considered together you will see that they are saying a person should always will the good of the other (a philosophy/counsel I know you could embrace). Or even more simply will to have good will. What is Good will/God’s will? Willing the to following the 10 commandments!! Yes, a virtuous circle.
Lastly, Jack your own experience has taught you that consent is not an obvious thing to identify and that it is influenced by power relationships. I think you need to question, again, your received notions of “adult” consentual relationships and behaviour. I think the Mass media is constantly trying to change our notions of what we consider to be consentual adult relationships.
Alexandria, no problem. I am still baffled that pro-aborts can work in abortion clinics, perhaps witness fetuses stuffed in jars, churned into human slurpees, or have their skulls cracked and remain unmoved. It scares me to think that these same people could be my neighbours!!!
And Jack 10 years ago I never would have thought I would be the guy talking about Jesus and trying to give him kudos.
“If you take a more spiritual reading of the 10 commandments you will find that some of the commandments such as the ones about coveting can be applied to children and the proper treatment of children. The commandment to Honor your Mother and Father has implications for how Parents should treat their children.”
My problem is that a lot of people I have met don’t take a “spiritual” reading of anything. None of the so-called Christians I grew up with did. It was okay for my mother to beat on me because of “spare the rod” and “stone your rebellious kid” and all that. Also, when I tried to get help for what my father was doing, I was told that my eternal soul was in jeopardy because “thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman” and that I was supposed to respect my parents, shut up about it and pray. I was a kid, that was really unfair. I actually try to avoid religious discussion except with a trusted friends, because I tend to come of anti-Christian and bitter, and I don’t want to. I try to be respectful, but I really have a problem with how Christianity is used by a lot of people.
“Lastly, Jack your own experience has taught you that consent is not an obvious thing to identify and that it is influenced by power relationships. I think you need to question, again, your received notions of “adult” consentual relationships and behaviour. I think the Mass media is constantly trying to change our notions of what we consider to be consentual adult relationships.”
No, consent isn’t always obvious. It doesn’t change my stance that legality should be limited when it comes to relationships. For example, one of my friends used to sleep with a different man every weekend, not really because she wanted to, but because her self-esteem was so low she didn’t think any better of herself. That isn’t exactly informed healthy consent, but it isn’t something that can really be regulated. Should we make all adults get married before having sex, and criminalize all other forms of sex and treat them as rape? Of course I am exaggerating, but it’s a sticky problem. And again, it seems as though you are insisting that your definition of harm and consent should apply to other adults. I think that adults should be able to make that call for themselves, in most cases.
I haven’t fully formed an opinion on assisted suicide. I don’t really comment on something I haven’t thought about it’s implications.
Jack, when it comes to the Pill, there is that third unconsenting person involved that gets killed. Why do you not support restricting the use of the Pill?
“I think the Mass media is constantly trying to change our notions of what we consider to be consentual adult relationships.”
I agree, Tyler. Earlier Jack stated, “Like, when I was on the streets I think over half of the female prostitutes I knew were underage, and ALL of the male prostitutes were underage. STDs are really, really bad and common too, considering most of them were IV drug users as well. I think legalizing and regulating it might help those aspects of it.”
Why are we not helping underage prostitutes and SEVERELY punishing the adults that are having sex with underage prostitutes? I don’t see how legalizing and regulating something so wrong would help anything.
Abortion was wrong before it was legal and it’s still wrong. Making it legal did not decrease the number of abortions! We now have places that COVER UP for the victimization of underage people, some prostitutes, and send them back to be re-victimized.
“None of the so-called Christians I grew up with did.”
Jack, do you know what denomination(s) these Christians were a part of?
Denomination of Crazy People? They called themselves Evangelical but they really didn’t evangelize, we were actually very discouraged from talking to anyone who didn’t belong to the church. They were just very extreme Biblical literalists, like really, really literal.
“Also, when I tried to get help for what my father was doing, I was told that my eternal soul was in jeopardy because “thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman” and that I was supposed to respect my parents, shut up about it and pray.”
Jack, I find this very hard to believe. If this happened as you have recollected it was very very wrong for them not to helped you out and to have shunned you. But again I find it hard to believe people, no matter what religion, would say this to a child who has been raped by their own father.
After this kind of experience I am surprised that you are as friendly as you are towards Christianity. It is Saintly of you to be so charitable!!
Jack –
I’m a Christian, and I’ll be the first to tell you some of the biggest jerks in the world say they are Christians. The Bible can certainly be twisted and used to support terrible positions…but let me tell you that those who truly read it will find a much different story.
Please don’t imply I am lying about it or not remembering correctly Tyler, it was a very traumatic experience. I was a teenager and they seem to believe that I could protect myself if I didn’t want anyone to hurt me. But whatever.
I’m not saintly, I used to absolute despise Christianity and Christians. My Christian wife helped with that. I still have a lot of bitterness about the religion, I choose not to express it usually because I think it’s rude. And plus, I don’t think they stand for even like 1% of all Christians. I do think, that people can twist the Bible to horrendous things like that and it makes me very reluctant to involve myself in it again.
Thanks Ex, I try to keep that it mind, and not irrationally blame things that some creeps did on Christianity. I am much better at it than I used to be.
Jack
Sounds like you have a good wife. Glad to hear that the incident is behind you and that you have moved on.
Jack, sorry if this next question seems insensitive, but my question is inpsired by your generosity of spirit. How as a survivor of child incest did you get your mind around the idea that adult incest is ok? If anything, I thought you would be completely against incest at any age.
I don’t think adult incest is “ok”. I think it’s probably, in most cases, damaging and a sign of some mental issues. I don’t think that making it illegal, except in power-play type of relationships or non-consenting parties, will help anybody involved. I don’t understand why you think not wanting something illegal equals accepting or approving what the action is.
If you don’t mind I would love to stop talking about incest, please. We can talk about something else if you wish.
Jack
Ok, I agree, let’s talk about something else.
You did miss one of my earlier posts requesting further clarification, which was as follows:
Jack, when it comes to the Pill, there is that third unconsenting person involved that gets killed. Why do you not support restricting the use of the Pill?
some people say they are christians but watch them in action for a while and you will see how fake some are.
Jack
This sentence of yours really resonated with me – “And plus, I don’t think they stand for even like 1% of all Christians. I do think, that people can twist the Bible to horrendous things like that and it makes me very reluctant to involve myself in it again.”
One thing I’ve appreciated about Christianity is that if you really look at it, it isn’t a religion about rules, regulations and boundaries. Now, some will certainly take exception with that statement, and some are comforted by long lists of do’s and dont’s…but I believe in a centered approach to Christianity – here is what a person needs to believe, but the issues not central to salvation are things that people can agree to disagree on and still be a Christian. It allows for repentance, forgiveness, salvation, but freedom – a freedom that one can involve themselves in and find out who Christ really is – becoming a Christian without living up to and becoming the labels that are often associated with Christians.
” It allows for repentance, forgiveness, salvation, but freedom – a freedom that one can involve themselves in and find out who Christ really is – becoming a Christian without living up to and becoming the labels that are often associated with Christians”
Yeah.. that’s the kind of Christian my wife is, for the most part. I just have a lot of issues with how I see God, in addition to all the crap that left a bad taste in my mouth about the Bible and how it was used against me. I just always saw God as someone who was just waiting for you to screw up so you could be punished. I don’t understand the loving, forgiving part. To tell the truth I am honestly confused when people talk about it.
Tyler, I don’t support restricting the pill because the main idea isn’t to kill a new human. There’s a chance that the zygote won’t be able to implant, but many things can cause that, and we can’t possibly regulate all fertile women to make sure they don’t exercise too much, don’t drink too much caffeine, make sure they aren’t overweight or underweight, or anything else that might cause the new human to implant. It’s too intrusive and doesn’t make any sense.
Jack: “Tyler, I don’t support restricting the pill because the main idea isn’t to kill a new human. There’s a chance that the zygote won’t be able to implant, but many things can cause that, and we can’t possibly regulate all fertile women to make sure they don’t exercise too much, don’t drink too much caffeine, make sure they aren’t overweight or underweight, or anything else that might cause the new human to implant. It’s too intrusive and doesn’t make any sense.”
Jack which source did you get this info that exercising too much, tooo much caffeine, and being overweight affects implanation?
Can anyone else, with a science background, verify these claims by Jack.
Jack, not all of these things are equal. Being overweight is a longterm situation, something that does occur spontaneously and sometimes is beyond a woman’s control. From what I understand the “exercising too much” excuse might not be factual and is currently thought of as a myth. Drinking caffeine, not sure if this is true, but if it is, then a woman can control her intake when she is trying to get pregnant. Furthermore, none of these are intended to prevent conception or implantation. The Pill is designed purposely to prevent conception and implantation.
What is the difference in your opinion between the Pill and RU486?
Jack, not all of these things are equal. Being overweight is a longterm situation, something that doesn’t occur spontaneously and sometimes is beyond a woman’s control. From what I understand the “exercising too much” excuse might not be factual and is currently thought of as a myth. Drinking caffeine, not sure if this is true, but if it is, then a woman can control her intake when she is trying to get pregnant. Furthermore, none of these are intended to prevent conception or implantation. The Pill is designed purposely to prevent conception and implantation.
What is the difference in your opinion between the Pill and RU486?
Jack, the “main idea” of the Pill is to prevent conception AND IMPLANTATION.
Jack, you were sold the marketing material.
Jack, I totally believe you about your abuse and the crazy Christians.
When I started coming to grips about my abusive marriage, I went to talk with a priest about what my husband was doing to me. At the end of our conversation he told me to “go home and be a good wife and mother.”
Because of this comment, I had no doubt that sexual abuse was going on in the Catholic Church. However, I also do believe that some good Christians have been falsely accused of abuse as well but not to the extent of the abuse.
Can you prove when it inhibits ovulation and when it prevents implantation? And people get pregnant on the pill, so it obviously doesn’t kill every zygote. What do you think the punishment for providing/taking the pill should be, seeing as you can’t determine whether a death happened, unlike RU486?
Thank you Praxedes, I am sorry for what the priest told you and that you weren’t helped when you needed it. I still can’t imagine hearing something like that and not helping. I will never understand people. :(
Jack,
I understand people this far: “The heart is despartely wicked. Who can know it?”
As far as religion goes, the Bible itself indicates that 99% of us are getting it wrong. Only at “closing time” will it truly be made clear to us.
There’s hope for you – and me yet!
Jack, there is no need to prove when the Pill prevents implantation for each particular instance in order to determine whether it is morally right to partake in its use, it is sufficient to know that its purpose is to prevent implantation and that it does. I am not interested in punishing the users. Emphatically, there would be no punishment of the Pharmacists/Medical professionals for the past distribution of the Pill as I don’t desire its use to be criminalized. I simply want the prevention of its future use. This would simply entail not allowing the Pill to be sold/distributed to the public.
@Jack: Through years of therapy (also from an abusive and disordered home-life, i.e. rage-a-holic step-father), alcoholism, etc. I have finally accepted that we cannot put our trust in people and understand people. People let us down, hurt us, betray us. It’s only a loving God, our Father in heaven, that will never let us down. It’s not an easy road and along that journey is suffering and pain, but with God’s grace, we can be healed.
Jack/Praxedes
I know one of the messages in Christianity is to suffer through bad experiences. They idea is not alienate the sufferer, or that the Church desires the suffering of the innocent but that the Christian/sufferer has obligations higher than the bodily abuses/sufferings we receive and endure. The idea of the “good” marriage and the idea of the “good” son have value and meaning and are rewarded in the after-life according to Christianity. This does not mean that a son or wife who leaves their family or husband has committed a wrong however. And it certainly does not justify, or permit the wrong perpetrated by Jack’s family and Praxedes husband. Yet, it does mean your (Jack and Praxedes) reward in Heaven will be greater for not retaliating in kind to your abusers (as long you persevere in your good actions). You both turned the other cheek and are to be commended for your actions. Some Church members are so focused on ensuring that they don’t counsel bad advice, they forget to counsel good advice.
Praxedes the priest most certainly misspoke, and gave you incomplete and unsafe advice. His intentions may have been good, but their execution were certainly far from the mark.
I am sorry for both of your awful experiences.
Doe, you responded with a well needed post.
“I have finally accepted that we cannot put our trust in people and understand people. People let us down, hurt us, betray us. It’s only a loving God, our Father in heaven, that will never let us down. It’s not an easy road and along that journey is suffering and pain, but with God’s grace, we can be healed.”
Right, Doe. The only guarantee is there is no guarantee when it comes to people. But Jesus will always love you. My pain and sorrow made me realize how much I am totally dependent on Him. It also made me realize I am obligated to help others who are in pain and spread the Good News.
“I don’t understand the loving, forgiving part. To tell the truth I am honestly confused when people talk about it.”
You won’t always feel this way, Jack. You have Jesus with you and many of His friends praying for you. (;
Thanks Praxedes for spotting what Jack said. i missed that.
Jack, the loving and forgiving part is the most important aspect of God. To disagree with Ex-GOP slightly, I would say that this is part of his nature is more important than the part about being freedom, or rather the two are one in the same. Further, I would stress that it is the freedom that we feel when we are loved, that ability and comfort to be who we are, and reveal all of vulnerabilities to a person. In this world, it doesn’t happen all the time with the people around us, but it does happen. Often time you can glimpse the immensity of God’s love for us in the way a parent loves and child. His passion and unconditional love for us is more than xalisae’s passion for the unborn!!!(Just teasing xalisae.) I would also like to add that Salvation is the ultimate freedom, Christianity is only a liberation theology to the extent that God has freed our souls to love him, Eternal Perfect Love and He has liberated us from our imperfect, sinful, and conditional love minded selves completely. He welcomes everyone into his company, where the peace of an everlasting love will give all of us the freedom we always longed for.
The forgiving and loving part of God is why I go to Mass.
If you get a chance to go to a Mass one day I suggest you give it try – you may be pleasantly surprised.
I don’t deny that Catholic Priests have been far from perfect – but the Church never said they were!!! Like the rest of us they are pilgrims too, trying to find/make their way.
Thank you all for the advice.
Thank you Tyler & Prax. I should have been more specific in my post about trusting in people. What I meant to say is I do believe we have to trust to a certain point, but when you only trust in humans and not in a Higher Authority (God), then things can be even messier when someone lets you down. Still healing, though.
Tyler the Pill works by suppressing ovulation not by preventing implantation. It’s tragic you may have misled so many here. I’m a pharmacist. Yes, too much exercise can make women infertile by stopping menstruation. No too much caffeine does not have any appreciable effect on fertility. Being overweight does not affect fertility but definitely can cause serious problems in pregnancy.
I also happen to have survived being raped in my own bed by an intruder at age 11 with my entire family asleep in thenhouse. I find it appalling that so many prolifers would call me pro abortion because my physician took care of me by curetting my uterus to ensure I had not been impregnated. I find it appalling and even sadistic that radical prolifers would force an 11 year old rape victim to relinquish all hope of recovering mentally, put her fertility and even her life at risk to have her rapists baby.We are talking about a microscopic group of cells with no consciousness, simply a full set of chromosomes, taking precedence over the mental health, physical health, and even the life of a rape victim. Pro lifers like to see this issue in black and white terms. It’s actually quite gray a great deal of the time, and I take offense at many radical condescension. Walk a mile in my 11 year old rape victim shoes, then tell me I’m wrong to be grateful to the doctor who delivered me 11 years before and to my Catholic mother for making the ONLY humane course of action. I can tell you for starters you have no clue just how traumatic such a thing is. As jack can telll you there is no real recovery. To ask such a child weighing 94 pounds to put her life at risk and destroy what’s left of her mental health to bear a rapists baby is
tantamount to raping that child again, and it is just plain sick. This incident took place before Plan B
and even before Roe vs Wade. Until people like me speak up, radical prolifers get little argument to
their calling a 2 day old a child or even a baby. It is not a child It is a potential child, a full set a of chromosomes , a group of undifferentiated cells visible only with a micrscope, and for just a little while the woman’s needs should prevail. Like most people I believe in limits on abortion. But you radicals out there advocating no abortion no exceptions need a little sensitivity training, need to get a
little gray in your black and white thinking,which I am happy to provide. It’s easy to preach and judge and condescend on this in a general way. Now you’re hearing from a survivor of child rape. Tell ME how evil abortion is and that I am going to Hell?