God Speaks to Santorum and the GOP?

I'm sure some of you may have caught what Santorum had to say about sex in a recent clip on TV. He claimed the reason that God put men and women on this earth was to propagate and that any form for birth control was counter to the will of God.

Although I am a man, I am appalled at the very idea that anyone except a woman herself has any right to dictate that for which her own body will be used. The exception would be in the case of her being a member of the Armed Services...but at least for now, that is a voluntary choice that is made by both men and women alike. It is interesting that the main anti-choice voices continue to be preponderantly advanced by men...although there are some women nuts out there as well. Apparently, this is one government regulation to which the GOP is not opposed. (All we need is another GOP candidate who speaks for God or one in which God has exclusively spoken to him. Remember W? Look where that got us!)

Well he can claim that, which is why he'll get no Independents to vote for him. His rising star will fall soon, the GOP will see to that.

I'd like to get more information on his remarks, in order to put them in context. Having said that, I know Santorum is a devout Catholic and some Catholics take the Pope's prohibition on "artificial birth control" very seriously.

I've always thought that the idea of getting married and making babies until your wife gets too old to get pregnant or dies in child birth was insane. This practice may have made sense long ago when most children didn't survive childhood and the average life expectancy was probably thirty five. If most people stopped using birth control today, population growth would explode; it would be horrifiic.

An old John Denver song has the line, "I'd no more love just one kind of woman than drink just one kind of wine."

Funny reading liberal and wanna be libertarians being judgmental.

i just wish reading your crap was ever funny. IJS

Santorum is just another "flavor of the month". After NC he'll be short of money and disappear

I'm sure some of you may have caught what Santorum had to say about sex in a recent clip on TV. He claimed the reason that God put men and women on this earth was to propagate and that any form for birth control was counter to the will of God.

Although I am a man, I am appalled at the very idea that anyone except a woman herself has any right to dictate that for which her own body will be used. The exception would be in the case of her being a member of the Armed Services...but at least for now, that is a voluntary choice that is made by both men and women alike. It is interesting that the main anti-choice voices continue to be preponderantly advanced by men...although there are some women nuts out there as well. Apparently, this is one government regulation to which the GOP is not opposed. (All we need is another GOP candidate who speaks for God or one in which God has exclusively spoken to him. Remember W? Look where that got us!) Originally Posted by Browneagle

How do you feel about killing newborn babies? Obama believes it should be legal.

Legislation was passed at the national level called "the born alive infant protection act". This legislation stated that babies that survived late term abortion procedures must be cared for and saved if possible. It had become common practice for abortion "doctors" to deny care to babies that had survived late term abortions; they were simply neglected until they died. In some cases they were put in storage rooms until they died.

The federal legislation passed unanimously in the senate. Illinois was working to pass an essentially mirror image version of the federal bill. Obama was the chairman of the committee that oversaw the legislation in the state senate. He tabled the bill and would not allow a vote; it died in committee. The bill passed two years later, after Obama had left the state senate and was in the federal senate.

Obama's reason for blocking the legislation was that it interfered with the woman's right to choose. His reasoning was that the woman went to the abortion clinic with the intention to kill the baby in the womb and it was not her fault that the doctor failed to kill the child while it was still in the uterus.

Obama is an evil son of a bitch.

http://www.citizenlink.com/2008/04/0...rotection-act/

I'd like to get more information on his remarks, in order to put them in context. Having said that, I know Santorum is a devout Catholic and some Catholics take the Pope's prohibition on "artificial birth control" very seriously.

I've always thought that the idea of getting married and making babies until your wife gets too old to get pregnant or dies in child birth was insane. This practice may have made sense long ago when most children didn't survive childhood and the average life expectancy was probably thirty five. If most people stopped using birth control today, population growth would explode; it would be horrifiic. Originally Posted by joe bloe

As per your request...

Rick Santorum Even Opposes Birth Control
January 6, 2012
LAKEWOOD, COLO. – Former Sen. Rick Santorum's survival as a Republican primary candidate ensures two things: one, an endless stream of inappropriate jokes about sex acts and sweater vests. And two, an entirely appropriate conversation about birth control and public policy.

Rick Santorum is but the most extreme expression of the Republicans' inexorable march to the fringe on women's healthcare and reproductive rights. Even Rep. Ron Paul, who has his share of liberal apologists for his opposition to the PATRIOT Act and for being a supposed civil libertarian, has actively campaigned as being anti-choice. You can't be anti-choice and be a libertarian. Ron Paul opposes my civil liberties and those of half the U.S. population.

But Santorum's aggressive courting of social conservatives in Iowa to come within a hair's breadth of beating former Gov. Mitt Romney—who outspent him 70-1—has raised the birth control issue to a whole new level.

It's not enough to oppose abortion, even to protect the life of the mother or for survivors of rape or incest. Rick Santorum and all his fellow supporters of "life begins at conception" even oppose the most commonly used forms of birth control. This includes the top choice, the pill, since birth control can work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. Santorum opposes contraception in general, telling the blog caffeinatedthoughts.com in October, "It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

Santorum also opposes the predecessor to Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to privacy in 1965. Griswold negated a Connecticut state law banning the use of contraception by married couples. The day before the Iowa caucuses, Santorum told ABC's Jake Tapper, "It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have."

Perhaps realizing this could be a problem, Santorum has already contradicted himself, telling CNN's John King on January 4 that he would not have supported the Connecticut anti-contraception law because, "The government doesn't have a role to play in everything that, you know, that either people of faith or no faith think are wrong or immoral." This will undoubtedly come as news to the gay community and anyone who served in the Senate with Rick Santorum.

Funny reading liberal and wanna be libertarians being judgmental. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Agreed, everyone knows that's the province of the So-Cons.

As per your request...

Rick Santorum Even Opposes Birth Control
January 6, 2012
LAKEWOOD, COLO. – Former Sen. Rick Santorum's survival as a Republican primary candidate ensures two things: one, an endless stream of inappropriate jokes about sex acts and sweater vests. And two, an entirely appropriate conversation about birth control and public policy.

Rick Santorum is but the most extreme expression of the Republicans' inexorable march to the fringe on women's healthcare and reproductive rights. Even Rep. Ron Paul, who has his share of liberal apologists for his opposition to the PATRIOT Act and for being a supposed civil libertarian, has actively campaigned as being anti-choice. You can't be anti-choice and be a libertarian. Ron Paul opposes my civil liberties and those of half the U.S. population.

But Santorum's aggressive courting of social conservatives in Iowa to come within a hair's breadth of beating former Gov. Mitt Romney—who outspent him 70-1—has raised the birth control issue to a whole new level.

It's not enough to oppose abortion, even to protect the life of the mother or for survivors of rape or incest. Rick Santorum and all his fellow supporters of "life begins at conception" even oppose the most commonly used forms of birth control. This includes the top choice, the pill, since birth control can work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. Santorum opposes contraception in general, telling the blog caffeinatedthoughts.com in October, "It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

Santorum also opposes the predecessor to Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to privacy in 1965. Griswold negated a Connecticut state law banning the use of contraception by married couples. The day before the Iowa caucuses, Santorum told ABC's Jake Tapper, "It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have."

Perhaps realizing this could be a problem, Santorum has already contradicted himself, telling CNN's John King on January 4 that he would not have supported the Connecticut anti-contraception law because, "The government doesn't have a role to play in everything that, you know, that either people of faith or no faith think are wrong or immoral." This will undoubtedly come as news to the gay community and anyone who served in the Senate with Rick Santorum. Originally Posted by Browneagle

I believe that Santorum maintains that Roe vs Wade is not a legitimate ruling, that the generalized "right to privacy" is an invention of the court.

He is saying that because the constitution is silent on the issue of birth control and abortion it is up to the states to pass laws that they consider to be appropriate. He believes that if a state wanted to ban birth control they have the legal (constitutional) authority to do so. It's similar to the Texas sodomy laws that the supreme court overturned. They were stupid laws, but they were within the authority of the state not the federal government.

He is not saying that he is in favor of banning birth control, only that the state has the right to do so. Expressing his personal belief that birth control is immoral is not the same as saying that he wants to ban it; he has specifically said that he does not. I think Santorum's views are right on the constitution but are not good politics. It's too easy to demagogue his views and tell people he wants to ban birth control.

I believe that Santorum maintains that Roe vs Wade is not a legitimate ruling, that the generalized "right to privacy" is an invention of the court.

He is saying that because the constitution is silent on the issue of birth control and abortion it is up to the states to pass laws that they consider to be appropriate. He believes that if a state wanted to ban birth control they have the legal (constitutional) authority to do so. It's similar to the Texas sodomy laws that the supreme court overturned. They were stupid laws, but they were within the authority of the state not the federal government.

He is not saying that he is in favor of banning birth control, only that the state has the right to do so. Expressing his personal belief that birth control is immoral is not the same as saying that he wants to ban it; he has specifically said that he does not. I think Santorum's views are right on the constitution but are not good politics. It's too easy to demagogue his views and tell people he wants to ban birth control. Originally Posted by joe bloe

So, the Texas sodomy laws are stupid, and they were overturned by the Supreme Court as being violative of the Constitution (privacy rights, by the way) but the state should be allowed to pass and enforce those kinds of laws anyway? Unless, of course, they are the kinds of laws that you personally happen to disagree with? Doh! By the way, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue of whether states can outlaw contraception: Griswold v. Connecticut. The basis for that decision was that whole privacy thing that you say doesn't exist.

I love all you conservative fuck-wagons who think you have a corner on construing the meaning of the Constitution. It boils down to one thing and one thing only: if you personally disagree with a court's decision, it's unconstitutional. If you agree, they have construed the Constitution correctly. Never mind that you have zero fucking education and experience in trying to figure out what laws and legal opinions mean....and that the members of the Court have spent a life-time studying the law and, in most cases, decades construing what the Constitution means. You get your opinions from Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter, not from any base of knowledge regarding the requirements of the law.