1.03.2012
parting shot...
Just in case you think I was going soft on Rick Santorum on account of the superhero primary, do keep in mind that he's OK with outlawing contraception.
One can make a coherent, secular argument against legal abortion. (I don't agree with it, but it exists.) I suppose one could even make a secular argument against marriage equality, though I have yet to hear a good one. But banning contraception--which something like 99% of women of childbearing age use at some point--is firmly in the realm of applying a particular religious doctrine to the law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
i agree with about 25% of that. i dont think contraception should be outlawed, but i'm kinda on the half-way mark of whether a state has the power to do so.
i'd have to hear further arguments on that one.
but like i said on another page: he reminds me of somebody, and its not a good somebody...
cant believe this dude won iowa. must be something with the monsanto chemicals leeching into the groundwater.
just heard santorum speak on this. he said he belives the states have the right to ban contraception. he also reiterated that he does not support such a move, and never has. he was just responding to the question of does the constitution allow it.
1--If being a constitutionalust means believing that a state can pass any law not specifically proscribed by the constitution, then I'm not one and wouldn't vote for one on purpose.
2--re does not support and never has: bullshit. I'll dig up a link or two when I'm at a real computer.
isn't everybody a constitutionalist when asked?
“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country...Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. 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.” --11 Oct 2011
I guess "will talk about [as president]" is not exactly "I will push to make illegal", but in the context of the modern presidency (which Santorum shows no sign of looking to roll back) it's damn near a policy statement.
i will take santorum's decalration that he does not believe the state should outlaw contraception as definative them.
what you've quoted is the same belief that i hold as a catholic.
its also on par with saying: "people need to be more responsible in ther sexual lives". even planned parenthood would agree with me on this statement.
there is plenty, loads and piles of plenty, wrong with Santorum's policy prescriptions. we dont need to stretch for a bogeyman to win the debate.
Take it how you like it.
"I'm against X, the states are not prohibited from banning X, but I'm not advocating that states ban X" is a horseshit argument that tries to have it both ways. It's been deployed in the service of curtailing abortion, heading off marriage equality, and (before that) supporting segregation.
I'm not the kind of libertarian that only cares about what the federal government does.
And therein also lies the single biggest problem I have with Dr. Paul, too.
And, yes...Santorum would be a warmongering theocrat whether banning contraception is actually a plank in his platform or not.
in this context, santorum is running for a federal post, so i'll keep my arguments related to that post, not what some state might want to do that he says that they shouldnt.
what he is saying is that he wants to preach from the white house (and i'm not saying its a good thing that he wants to), much like how some do about what we eat.
He has also argued (repeatedly) that Griswold v. CT was wrongly decided. The outcome of that case said that states could not ban contraception. He has argued (repeatedly) that consensual sex between adults is a legitimate arena for legislation.
Surely you can see a difference between that and the First Lady exhorting you to eat your vegetables.
when localities are passing laws about what a restaurant can serve, while the first lady says nothing about such over reach...
yes, there is a difference. the biggest one being that one of these topics would never be passed by a lawmaking body in our democracy (as it currently exists).
(as for CT v Griswold: i've heard of it, never bothered to read the arguments. i considered the matter closed.)
Post a Comment