Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 28 of 28

Thread: Rick Santorum says birth control harms women

  1. #16
    Custom Title Johar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Petoskey, Michigan
    Posts
    1,683
    He also said he has no trouble with states deciding whether to ban contraception. Why, in the 21st century, would anyone want to ban contraception? Taking away choices makes me angry and scared at the same time.

  2. #17
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,020
    Another counter point in this contraception debate, particularly with regard to the falsely pious arguments made by religious groups, is that they willingly cover prescriptions for viagra and other sexual performance medications without regard to marital status. In other words, they pay for happy pills to enable men to have sex with greater frequency even if they are not doing so within the bonds of marriage for the purpose of procreation. Given the logic the Church uses to support it's argument that artificial contraception is unnatural and should therefore not be practiced, it would seem to follow that artificial means of achieving arousal should also not be pursued. But since men make the rules, that sort of inconsistency is unlikely to be highlighted. You don't hear the Church or its adherents claiming that erectile dysfunction is a gift to simply be made the best of.

  3. #18
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by dorispulaski View Post
    A horrible rape, 9 months when it will be functionally impossible not to think about the rape every hour, since the evidence of it is literally right in front of you, a risk of death, and a certainty of pain during delivery. Where is there any gift in that? And if someone choose to keep such a child, how could the mother not see the rapist's face in the child's face? How could such a mother be a good choice as a parent for that child? Gift is a particularly inapt word, IMO.
    I wonder if there has been any study conducted on the psychological development of rape-begotten children. I imagine there must be lots of guilt and self-loathing since the hardship and mental sufferings their mothers have to go through are so intelligible and evident. After they grow up, they may feel they owe their mothers a better life and deeply appreciate them for keeping and raising them. They may become devoted children looking after their mothers forever with a strong sense of obligation out of guilt and appreciation. When that comes, the mother may say to her child "You are a gift from God" although she literally earns it with sweat and tears. Fate is a very strange thing. Again, not all women are capable of going through such sufferings. I'm still pro-choice.

  4. #19
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    14,272
    That's all lovely, but it sounds highly unlikely. It's more likely that the child will have significant genetic issues inherited from its father. Perhaps a tendency to alcoholism, heritable mental disorders, uncontrollable rage etc. A person who is not the rape victim will probably have a better chance of successfully raising that child and loving it.

    Unwanted children on average have a bad time of it in any case. And that's when rape is not involved.

    There is a longitudinal double blind study from Sweden, Finland, and Czech Republic

    http://birthpsychology.com/content/b...enied-abortion

    In Prague, studies used a double-blind method, matched-pair controls, periodic psychological assessments, and public records. By age nine, the children born to mothers twice refused for abortion ended up requiring more medical care for acute and long-term illnesses. Mothers rated them as more stubborn, naughty, and bad-tempered. Teachers rated them lower in academic achievement. Schoolmates rejected them as friends more often than their peers. Born to ambivalent mothers, these children were more deviant, received less empathy and attention to their communications, had less warm interchanges with each other, and suffered psychological deprivation.

    At age 14, school performance was worse, many opting not to continue to secondary school. Teachers rated them more hyperactive and less sociable. They felt more rejected by their mothers than did the matched-pairs; and relationships with parents deteriorated over time.

    By age 23 these unwanted children showed a greater proneness to social problems, criminal activity, and had triple the amount of serious repeated offenses requiring custodial prison sentences. When questioned about their happiness and life-style they reported far more dissatisfaction, unhappiness, problems, and worries than the control children. They mentioned having poor relationships with their parents and knew that their parents were dissatisfied with them. Unwanted children reported repeated disappointments with love relationships and agreed with the statement: "love brings more trouble than pleasure."
    That was just because the mother did not want the child. These were not children of rape.

    If the mother insists on having the child, she should definitely give it up for adoption, for the child's sake. No child deserves to grow up this way.


    The child would be growing up with a woman who is at risk for post traumatic stress disorder:

    http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/ptsd/

    About 47% of women have longer term problems than 3 months from PTSD following rape.
    Last edited by dorispulaski; 02-09-2012 at 09:06 PM.

  5. #20
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    8,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Johar View Post
    He also said he has no trouble with states deciding whether to ban contraception. Why, in the 21st century, would anyone want to ban contraception? Taking away choices makes me angry and scared at the same time.
    There doesn't seem to be any logic to being against contraception. It's not just women that gain control over their bodies with this possibility, it's men. This includes married couples as well as people who are out there nightclubbing. Family size is something that can be crucial to survival if times are tough. For people who prefer large families, terrific; but not everyone does want a large family, nor can everyone support many children--for a variety of reasons. These reasons should be up to the parents in question, and should not need to be defended in order to "qualify" for contraception.

    I always remind myself that during the Great Depression, the birth rate went down. The pill and other common methods of birth control were not available at that time. One wonders how the pregnancy rate went down. It couldn't all be because of celibacy. New York's longtime mayor Ed Koch had a series of dialogues with his good friend Cardinal John O'Connor, about issues on which they disagreed. O'Connor, of course, upheld the church's ban on abortion. Koch revealed that his mother had had more than one abortion during the Depression because they couldn't afford to feed another child. I'm sure it wasn't the path she wanted to take, but a lack of food and money can force tough choices. Wouldn't it have been easier if IUDs had existed at the time? Well, they do exist now, and people should have access to them.

    And it shouldn't be anyone's business who uses them and who doesn't.

  6. #21
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,204
    It is so scary for me to think if he were to become president how it could negatively impact the lives of so many women. Republicans want to force women to have kids but also cut-off welfare families need to take care of these children.

  7. #22
    Custom Title Kitt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy View Post
    It is so scary for me to think if he were to become president how it could negatively impact the lives of so many women. Republicans want to force women to have kids but also cut-off welfare families need to take care of these children.
    Yes, this is totally illogical! Hard not to get upset about this stance.

  8. #23
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by dorispulaski View Post
    It's more likely that the child (of rape) will have significant genetic issues inherited from its father. Perhaps a tendency to alcoholism, heritable mental disorders, uncontrollable rage etc. A person who is not the rape victim will probably have a better chance of successfully raising that child and loving it. Unwanted children on average have a bad time of it in any case. And that's when rape is not involved....The child would be growing up with a woman who is at risk for post traumatic stress disorder...
    Is it OK to kill someone because he is alcoholic, mentally ill, emotionally troubled, or genetically defected? Because he has less chance of success in school or career? Because his mother is suffering post traumatic stress disorder and doesn't love him at all? Flash a knife before an alcoholic and ask if he would prefer to live or die, or point a gun at an unloved child and ask why he deserves life. I'm against death penalty because I would rather let 99 criminals live than mistakenly kill one innocent. Even if the statistics suggest that 90% of children born of rape might be disadvantaged genetically, socially, mentally or whatever, does that justify the killing of 10% healthy, normal kids?

    An abortion prerequisite bill was introduced in Iowa House on January 12, 2012 that would require a woman to view an ultrasound image of her baby and listen to its heartbeat before she could choose an abortion. The point is: There is a life, a heartbeating life in the belly. Although out of sight, out of mind, it is there, real and alive.

  9. #24
    Custom Title Johar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Petoskey, Michigan
    Posts
    1,683
    Don't take choices away. Choices to use BC; choices to end a pregnancy if you want; to have a pregnancy if you want.

  10. #25
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    14,272
    Quote Originally Posted by skatinginbc View Post
    Is it OK to kill someone because he is alcoholic, mentally ill, emotionally troubled, or genetically defected? Because he has less chance of success in school or career? Because his mother is suffering post traumatic stress disorder and doesn't love him at all? Flash a knife before an alcoholic and ask if he would prefer to live or die, or point a gun at an unloved child and ask why he deserves life. I'm against death penalty because I would rather let 99 criminals live than mistakenly kill one innocent. Even if the statistics suggest that 90% of children born of rape might be disadvantaged genetically, socially, mentally or whatever, does that justify the killing of 10% healthy, normal kids?

    An abortion prerequisite bill was introduced in Iowa House on January 12, 2012 that would require a woman to view an ultrasound image of her baby and listen to its heartbeat before she could choose an abortion. The point is: There is a life, a heartbeating life in the belly. Although out of sight, out of mind, it is there, real and alive.
    That is not what I was arguing: I was arguing that if a woman was crazy enough (IMO) to have the child of rape, she should be willing to give the child the best chance of a decent life possible, which, frankly, would be best achieved by giving the child up for adoption.

    But since we're going there, no I don't believe that 10 cells in a bunch is a child. It could become a child, but it isn't one yet, in my opinion. If you are raped, take the Plan B, would be my advice, but that would be my advice & my choice. I would leave that choice to the woman in the situation herself, not to me.

    However, I also believe that a child that you've given birth to deserves the best chance you can give it. Unwanted children have a bad time of it-adoption would be better for the child. But again, I would leave that choice to the mother, and pray continuously for the poor child if the mother decided not to give it up for adoption, and try to help the child if I could, if they were people I knew.

    While we're asking rhetorical questions, a dog has the the intelligence of a two year old child. A cat has the intelligence of a year and a half year old child. Why is it OK to euthanize dogs and cats? Why is it OK to force a woman to die from an ectopic pregnancy, when the child will die whether the mother lives or not?

    Would you force someone to give a liver or kidney or lung to someones else who would die without it? Should all organs be donated from corpses without the prior written consent of the person when they were alive? Should parents be able to choose to separate Siamese twins, which it is likely that one of the will die of the operation? Should people be able to shoot other people in self defense? Should there be capital punishment? If 10 cells is a person, should in vitro fertilization be prohibited, since it results in the death of a number of embryos?

    It is common practice for doctors not to choose to give organ transplants to people who are alcoholics at least in some states. In fact, the ex-wife of one of my thesis advisers died because she couldn't give up alcohol, and, as a result, couldn't get a liver transplant. Was that right? She wanted to live, and did nothing more destructive than write funny letters to the paper when drunk

    We started a war in Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of people who were not defective in any way. Was that right?

    I am also puzzled at people who think that looking at an ultrasound would convince any one of anything. A doll looks like a baby too, but it isn't one. It's nice of the Iowa legislature to give increased sales to ultrasound machine sellers, and nasty of them to make abortion more expensive for people who have chosen to have one, and consequently, making abortions less available to poor women while not affecting the choices of rich women. Why people make an argument for the personhood of a fetus, focussing on the heart beat is even odder to me. What would be more definitive, again in my opinion, is when does brain activity begin--and the answer is at 25 weeks. Cats, dogs, snakes, and in a sense, earthworms, all have hearts. Why would the age at which a fetus has a heart convince anyone of anything different about when life begins?

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_does_...brain_activity


    Most people hold a set of inconsistent views about many of these things.

    I, for example, am against capital punishment, against forced organ transplant, against shooting at people who are shooting at me, but I don't have any problems with allowing a woman to choose an abortion, particularly in the first trimester.

    Because these beliefs are intertwined with people's religious beliefs, we all start from different viewpoints to evaluate these questions, and I recognize that. It makes discussion difficult, but not, I think, impossible.


    When people start from a different set of firmly held beliefs, it's difficult to discuss things. It helps if you know where they are coming from. Consequently, I would like know whether you think contraception should also be illegal, whether sex, when not for purposes of procreation is sinful?

  11. #26
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,020
    Another point worth making with regard to mandatory ultrasounds prior to abortions is the fact that Virginia is currently reviewing proposed legislation to mandate not just pre-abortion ultrasounds, but highly invasive ones. The legislation's original language requires women seeking abortions to submit to not a standard ultrasound but a transvaginal one. (Forgive my but I am only using as much specific language as is necessary to describe the procedure in question.) The woman's doctor would be compelled to perform the procedure, which involves the insertion of an ultrasound probe into the woman's genitals regardless of his/her professional opinion on its necessity. Ironically, the legislation does not require the woman to see the ultrasound image, only that she be given the option of viewing it. It does, however, require that a copy of the image be placed and kept in the woman's medical records. There are no exceptions for woman needing abortions to save their lives or for those who have suffered rape or incest. (It's a law straight out of Santorum's wildest fantasies.) I can come to only one conclusion about the intent of such a measure. It is meant to shame and humiliate the woman seeking the abortion.

    Because of the obviously uncomfortable subject matter, the national press virtually ignored this story (aside from Rachel Maddow) for over a week. Only toward the end of last week and beginning of this one did coverage increase. Even so, some of it glossed over or even ignored the most egregious element of the bill. As smarmy as it is to contemplate, it is worth discussion. Both Virginia law and new FBI regulations define the non-consensual insertion of a foreign object into a person's body as rape. Therefore the argument is being made that Virginia is proposing a mandatory rape of female patients by their doctors before seeking an abortion. What's even worse is that this bill is closely modeled after an already existing law in North Dakota, but no one bothered to look at what the imposition of such a law would mean on the women in question.

    Fortunately, enough of a fuss was raised just in time in order to get the governor to pull his support for the original language. He and the Republican leaders edited the bill to no mandate abdominal ultrasounds. The House of Delegates passed that new language this afternoon.

    All of this matters in part because the current governor of Virginia is term limited and is actively lobbying to be the VP nominee for the GOP. He's considered a top three option. Also, the Virginia Senate race is one of the hottest in the nation and features two of the last three governors as the candidates. Of course, it's also a critical swing state for the presidency as well.

    Still it's crazy to think that so many of these social cases recently involve the government or large religious institutions fighting for the right to tell large groups of women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. They are being told that they should have to be shamed for any choices they make, should have to pay more to maintain a basic quality of life, and should not be involved in the public debate about their own health. It's most disturbing.

  12. #27
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,068
    The Republican Party is digging its own grave. A man or woman who just lost his job and his house, who is at his wit's end as to how to provide for his family -- this person is not going to cast his vote for President because of someone's position on birth control or gay marriage.

    If the Republicans surrender the economic stage to President Obama, while they are discussing hot-button emotional issues, they will be out of luck in November.

  13. #28
    Custom Title Johar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Petoskey, Michigan
    Posts
    1,683
    They sure are, Mathman.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •