Slimy pro-abortion congressional candidate mails condoms to pro-lifers
Why do I think Democrat pro-abortion congressional candidate James Woods is slimy?
Aside from the fact Woods retaliated against a pro-life letter writing campaign by mailing condoms back to pro-lifers, he introduced his condom strategy on Facebook with “Got Wood(s)?” What person running for U.S. Congress goes gutter like that?
Woods is also a card-carrying atheist, which may help explain his lack of decorum. Here’s the letter he sent with his condoms:
Actually, condoms are not the route to go if one is trying to avoid pregnancy. According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, condoms have an 18% failure rate, meaning one in five women can expect an oopsy pregnancy within a year of use.
Woods is running against Republican pro-life incumbent Matthew Salmon in the majorily Republican Arizona 5th Congressional District. Salmon is favored to win.
Salmon has also swamped Woods in fundraising, raising $803,439 to Woods’ $30,736.
James Woods is physically blind, but his bigger concern is blindness of a different sort.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Makes me wonder if he’s trying to justify a past abortion in his own life. If so, I hope he finds a compassionate pro-lifer who will help guide him to healing.
His physical blindness is a pity.
His spiritual blindness is an eternal death sentence.
#repentbeforeitstoolate
Lots of talk about government empowering low-income women and their children.
I wonder if he realizes for every child born there is a daddy who needs to be held responsible as well.
He seems like a jerk but I don’t see how his lack of decorum is tied to his atheism. There are some atheists on this board and they behave quite nicely.
I find it funny that you ask for, “No deliberate inflammatory comments.” and start by calling the person you disagree with “Slimey.” From his dry appearance in the picture you present, I doubt he is Slimey. Do doubt, woods will lose, but no doubt the debate is needed.
When a candidate makes a public statement or performs a public act, we can comment on the merits of the response.
A successful candidate must be able to state his position clearly and fairly to those who oppose that position.
Often, a candidate tries to state his contrary position in a way that appears to agree with the opposition. For example, Obama was great at this tactic. Early in his political career (which coincidentally was also early in his presidency), opponents often left the President with the impression that he had “heard” them, and would consider their position sympathetically. We have since learned that he is a weasel. Weasels are very convincing at saying one thing when they mean something else.
The response of Daniel Woods — who included packets of condoms in his written response to Pro-Lifers — was slimy. We didn’t ask for condoms; we asked for respect.
I wouldn’t let a guy like that shake my hand if he offered it (he probably sneezed in it first).
I read the linked Guttmacher article.
The 18% statistic you cite twists the article’s words. Guttmacher writes: “The male condom is 98% effective with perfect use. However, the method failure rate increases to 18% WITH TYPICAL USE.” [emphasis mine].
Earlier, the article stated that “’Typical-use’ failure rates take into account when users fail to use a method consistently or use it incorrectly.”
So basically, people who use condoms “inconsistently” or “incorrectly” have an 82% contraceptive effectiveness rate while those who use them “consistently” and “correctly” have a 98% effectiveness rate.
You’re not doing your movement any favors by twisting data.
Charlie, LOL you actually think that Guttmacher would not tout perfect use numbers if they were anywhere close to reality? Condoms being “98% effective” at preventing pregnancy has been the biggest joke for many years. Condoms have been called “antiquated birth control” for years in the medical community. Worked in OB healthcare for many years cannot tell you how many “condom babies” I saw and even healthcare providers that I worked with who were using 2 forms of b/c and still had an unplanned pregnancy. LOL!! 98% effective my eye.
Dear Charlie,
Let us suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the Guttmacher data are accurate.
A population of perfect couples using condoms for contraception would experience a 2% failure rate.
If you and your companion use condoms, applying all of your professional restraint and self-control, you will get whatever result you get.
Woods is recommending that the general public, and especially children in our K-12 public schools, should rely on condoms. That experience of failure is 18%, according to Guttmacher.
Woods’s slimy suggestion is that 18% failure is better than anything pro-lifers have to offer. If he can persuade Arizona parents that this is true, he might win his election.
Charlie, I was accurate in my statement. Perfect use is not reality, which Guttmacher admitted. I quoted reality, not fantasy.
Thank you, phillymiss. We atheists aren’t all jerks.
The failure rate of condoms for STDs/STIs is??? Nothing healthy about that! Putting on, taking off or just feeling the other up can put whatever the other has on your flying fingers. That is the body fluids/bacteria/virus that the CDC speaks of when they talk about the 110 million prevalent rate of STDs/STIs in the US. They are spread to the next area you touch. “Transmission between the hands and genitals, as well as apparent self-inoculation events (primarily in men), were also observed.” From the Abstract Hernandez BY, Wilkens LR, Zhu X, Thompson P, McDuffie K, Shvetsov YB, et al. Transmission of human papillomavirus in heterosexual couples. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2008 Jun [date cited]. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/14/6/888.htm
See also http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs110/en/ for data on this from the World Health Organization.
Sad to say that medical people do not tell people to wash their hands before, during and after sex like they do when you are preparing food.
Poor choices and poor advice lead to poor results. Do not want their baby or disease? Why are you wasting your time and health with them?
Stripping away all of the analysis and fluff and repulsive behavior, here is what I find:
A great part of society has a blind faith in the effectiveness of contraception. This faith endows the believers with the illusion that we can have total control over our fertility. We can have the sexual activity we want, free from the consequences of conception and disease. There will be no unplanned children, divorces, or broken hearts.
Idealistic politicians, like Woods and Pelosi, believe this. More cynical politicians, like Obama and Biden, know that the public believes this — and are content to use our misplaced faith to their advantage. (I have no idea where Hillary and Reid fall on this spectrum.)
Either way — whether ideologues or elitists — the pro-choice politicians insist that a pain-free, abortion-free nirvana is available. They could give it to us. The only obstacle are those pesky pro-lifers who won’t let the elitist ideologues force tax-payer funded contraception and abortion upon the whole culture.
So, it seems that this post doesn’t have a title anymore. Is this the same for everyone else?
I assume that everyone clutching his/her pearls at the vulgarity of sending condoms also objects to leafletting an abortion provider’s neighborhood with gory fetus photos.
he introduced his condom strategy on Facebook with “Got Wood(s)?” What person running for U.S. Congress goes gutter like that?
I thought he was reminding everyone to have a driver in their golf bags. Pro-lifers have the most gutter mindset I have ever seen. Must be connected to their BDSM obsession.
“PREVENT ABORTION”
False advertising.
It should say “DOESN’T PREVENT ABORTION”
If condoms prevented abortion, there wouldn’t be any “condom babies.”
Politicians use “bait and switch” tactics all the time. Words to describe this tactic would be “mercurial, deceptive, false, or slimy.” Not exactly the kind of person who should be voting up or down on laws that govern us all.
The condom Woods sent out would represent how often he would vote against the common good: at least 18% of the time. And when the failure of the Woods condom resulted in an abortion, the failure rate for the aborted person would be 100% of the time.
It seems the title has now returned. Interesting.
Thank you, phillymiss. We atheists aren’t all jerks.
I know that, I think most atheists want to mind their own business and be left alone. It’s the Dawkins types that give them a bad name.
Gee LisaC, if we’re such terrible people, why on on earth to keep on coming to this board?
Pro-aborts think we’re a bunch of pearl-clutching biddies who can’t stand the idea of sex, huh? That cracks me up! :D
Guess LisaC hasn’t met many pro-lifers, who tend to have more than the average 2.3 kids.
I wonder how that happens, since they fear and hate sex sooooo much.
And for reporting on and researching the trend toward society’s fascination with BDSM (thanks to a trash novel author not associated with the P-L movement), and for pointing out that a candidate for public office thought it was a classy idea to send out birth control to promote himself… WE are the ones with minds in the gutter? For pointing it out?
Yeah… the logic is strong with this one.
DocKimble: “PREVENT ABORTION” False advertising. It should say “DOESN’T PREVENT ABORTION”
Well, it does, though, just like seat belts prevent automobile accident deaths. In neither case is it assumed that no such deaths or abortions will occur. But you know darn well that plenty are prevented.
Pro-aborts think we’re a bunch of pearl-clutching biddies who can’t stand the idea of sex, huh? That cracks me up! Guess LisaC hasn’t met many pro-lifers, who tend to have more than the average 2.3 kids. I wonder how that happens, since they fear and hate sex sooooo much.
You’re reading a lot into my comment, Kel. Most of which is not there.
researching the trend toward society’s fascination with BDSM
Research? On this site? Hee!
Gee LisaC, if we’re such terrible people, why on on earth to keep on coming to this board?
Someone needs to point out the lies and disinformation.
Doug: And you know darn well that advertising condoms as abortion prevention is false advertising. Condoms are supposed to prevent pregnancy. No condom ever made prevented any abortion ever executed.
Oh come now, Lisa. You’re all the same. You think pro-lifers fear sex and therefore things that pertain to sex, i.e. condoms. You all even SAY the same things: “Someone needs to point out the lies…”
Oh, if I had a dollar for every time I heard that one…
It’s all about self sacrifice, right? The beacons of truth and all that. Lol
JDC – I don’t know what I did yesterday. In all my flurrying about I apparently deleted the title and then deleted part of the article! They’re both back. Thanks for the heads up.
DocKimble: Doug: And you know darn well that advertising condoms as abortion prevention is false advertising. Condoms are supposed to prevent pregnancy. No condom ever made prevented any abortion ever executed.
Doc, I think it’s still the same thing. Birth control does prevent a huge number of abortions. No seat belt ever brought anybody killed in an auto accident back from the dead, but what are you going to do – not wear them?
It is not pro-abortion, it’s pro-choice. No man should regulate a woman’s body. Preventing pregnancy is the responsibility of the MAN and WOMAN. Women don’t get pregnant by themselves. Wearing a condom is not totally, 100% effective, but it reduces the chance of pregnancy.
People who are against abortion obviously don’t see the whole picture. There are more women giving birth than there are women having abortions. There could be a number of reasons for a woman to get an abortion. Incest, rape, a medical condition, ect.
If it was not for for the use of birth control, my wife and I would have many, many, many more than the two children we have, or we would have had to consider abortion (and who knows, maybe she did have one or two, but that decision is between her and her doctor). This is simply because we cannot afford more than two, nor we do not want more than two, children. That is our choice, and quite honestly, we do not want anyone taking that choice away from us.
“Criticize ideas, not people.”
However “candidate James Woods is slimy” and ” card-carrying atheist, which may help explain his lack of decorum”
Methinks that you need to live by your own rules. Being against an idea you are for does not make one slimy, nor does non-belief in invisible people make one amoral.
pro-lifers fear sex and therefore things that pertain to sex, i.e. condoms.
That’s not what I said, but if you’re saying it’s true, then I believe you.
Doug: Comparing condoms to seat belts is false advertising.
You wear seat belts to prevent death. You wear condoms to prevent pregnancy, to prevent life. When the condom fails to pervert nature and nature succeeds, you conceive life.
The intention of the condom, then, is to ignore the child before, during and after the contracepted sex act. The logic of the condom then leads to abortion.
All perversions are illogical, a perversion of nature and a rejection of the nature and meaning of the human person.