Santorum is a lunatic, Part 10,568

[Keystone Phil]

Nine pages and this is my first comment! Yeah!

[Mechaman]

Nine pages and this is my first comment! Yeah!

Congratulations Phil.

[bgwah]

...Yeah, I had no idea this thread would get so big. lol.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what you are saying is that devout Catholics have no place in American society? If you want to throw out the constitution -  be my guest. But don't be surprised when the United States don't follow along with you.

You want a society where everyone pays for contraception, and for health care - it's called Canada. I hear they are taking applications...

Where did I say that?  All I said is that the law of the land is above religious law.  You are free to practice any religion you want and to disregard contraception... but then society decides that contraceptives are to be covered in employee health plans, and you say we have no right to do so because of your religion.  So...our laws have to meet your religious tests?  

If you feel that you are paying for contraception and that is a sin, and that is more important to you than living in this society... leave!  The adults have sh*t to get done.  

Seriously here.  If a fundamentalist Christian wants to stone his neighbor to death for working in his yard on Sunday... what the hell should we do?  Grant him a reprieve?  Sorry guys but those are his beliefs? 

The hospital is NOT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.  The Catholic Church wants to run an institution that is not technically a church than IT HAS TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF THE LAND.  I hate having to go all caps on anything, but this issue is so cut and dry it's incredible that it even needs debate.  Every preceding poster than likens this to an argument out of the 1950s is spot on.   

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you're comfortable making a life or death decision here based on that uncertainty? I'm not. If we don't know then we shouldn't be doing them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They were never done in back alleys. They were done by DRs in clinics prior to legalization. Doctors like Nathanson who did plenty under both regimes testified to this fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite false. Abortion even in a 'safe' setting is riskier than the alternatives. Rather then making the mother safer - the mother is better off giving birth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does that matter? Do you believe that a more developed fetus is a person, but a lesser developed one is not?

If there's not bright line - then there's nothing yucky about abortion through all nine months.

See - I think you do have a bright line. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what, pray tell is a real abortion? When does the child become a child that you can abort?

[TJ in Oregon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what you are saying is that devout Catholics have no place in American society? If you want to throw out the constitution -  be my guest. But don't be surprised when the United States don't follow along with you.

You want a society where everyone pays for contraception, and for health care - it's called Canada. I hear they are taking applications...

Where did I say that?  All I said is that the law of the land is above religious law.  You are free to practice any religion you want and to disregard contraception... but then society decides that contraceptives are to be covered in employee health plans, and you say we have no right to do so because of your religion.  So...our laws have to meet your religious tests?  

If you feel that you are paying for contraception and that is a sin, and that is more important to you than living in this society... leave!  The adults have sh*t to get done.  

Seriously here.  If a fundamentalist Christian wants to stone his neighbor to death for working in his yard on Sunday... what the hell should we do?  Grant him a reprieve?  Sorry guys but those are his beliefs? 

The hospital is NOT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.  The Catholic Church wants to run an institution that is not technically a church than IT HAS TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF THE LAND.  I hate having to go all caps on anything, but this issue is so cut and dry it's incredible that it even needs debate.  Every preceding poster than likens this to an argument out of the 1950s is spot on.   

Of course the Church has to follow the law of the land, but the administration WROTE THE F***ING LAW on purpose to screw over the Church. Of course Catholics ought to be pissed. Is there any doubt about what the administration's intent was in writing the rules for religious exemptions so that they didn't cover Catholic hospitals? How many other institutions are there that oppose contraceptives and employ a lot of people? Sure it all may very well be legal, but geez...

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Nine pages and this is my first comment! Yeah!

. Congrats Phil!

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the name of that law of the land - the constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the law of the land says that such a requirement is unconstitutional. So the law of the land takes precedence. You are right that I am required to follow the higher law - the law that says that I have every right to practice my religion free from this constraint.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's what the US constitution says.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, you leave. If you want to break the constitution then you don't belong in America. Go to Canada or elsewhere. Constitution > you.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does the constitution say? Constitution says that this would be regarded as murder and he would be rightfully charged and arrested if proven. That same constitution says that exercise of religion shall not be infringed.

That includes requiring religious people to act against their conscience and pay for contraception. So tough noogies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was built by the Church, run by the Church, and they are just as free to practice their religion as anyone else in America.

Again, the constitution takes precendent over whatever laws Obama dumps on us. The constitution protects us and our natural rights.

[Ebowed]

Where is the Catholic outrage over taxpayer funded executions?

[greenforest32]

To theocrats, "religious liberty" = religious law

The freedom to ban legal activities on Sunday

The freedom to accept government funds and discriminate

The freedom to arbitrarily defund programs (sex education, birth control) and organizations (Planned Parenthood) they don't agree with

The freedom to refuse to dispense birth control/contraceptives as a pharmacist because it "violates their conscience"

The freedom to cut off your infant son's foreskin

The freedom to ban gays and lesbians from serving in the military, adopting, and getting married

The freedom to force women to give birth

The "freedom" to live under God's law

Repugnant authoritarians

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you're comfortable making a life or death decision here based on that uncertainty? I'm not. If we don't know then we shouldn't be doing them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They were never done in back alleys. They were done by DRs in clinics prior to legalization. Doctors like Nathanson who did plenty under both regimes testified to this fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite false. Abortion even in a 'safe' setting is riskier than the alternatives. Rather then making the mother safer - the mother is better off giving birth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does that matter? Do you believe that a more developed fetus is a person, but a lesser developed one is not?

If there's not bright line - then there's nothing yucky about abortion through all nine months.

See - I think you do have a bright line.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what, pray tell is a real abortion? When does the child become a child that you can abort?

There is no one line, don't worry. But it's obviously better to abort a mass of cells with no neurons (so it can't feel pain), than a fetus that can feel pain. If there is any line I am willing to draw, it might be around there. But it's not as if I am completely opposed to any abortion performed after that time frame. So yeah, no line but it's preferable abortions be done as soon as possible.

A "real" abortion is actually directly killing the fetus or embryo. Plan B does not do that. It POSSIBLY could stop implantation, which would lead to the mass of cells being ejected from the body. It doesn't feel anything, and that happens all the time even without the use of that drug. It's not considered a miscarriage. But Plan B stops ovulation. That is what is accepted in medical literature and there is no reason why we should believe anything to the contrary. If you would like to rewrite it, I recommend you get a medical degree and do the appropriate research.

[Free Palestine]

Where is the Catholic outrage over taxpayer funded executions?

To theocrats, "religious liberty" = religious law

The freedom to ban legal activities on Sunday

The freedom to accept government funds and discriminate

The freedom to arbitrarily defund programs (sex education, birth control) and organizations (Planned Parenthood) they don't agree with

The freedom to refuse to dispense birth control/contraceptives as a pharmacist because it "violates their conscience"

The freedom to cut off your infant son's foreskin

The freedom to ban gays and lesbians from serving in the military, adopting, and getting married

The freedom to force women to give birth

The "freedom" to live under God's law

Repugnant authoritarians

[RI]

Where is the Catholic outrage over taxpayer funded executions?

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church doesn't have quite the same level of moral opposition to the death penalty as abortion, which I understand though don't necessarily agree with completely. It's generally a scale issue, though; there are millions more abortions than executions in the US.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was built by the Church, run by the Church, and they are just as free to practice their religion as anyone else in America.

Again, the constitution takes precedence over whatever laws Obama dumps on us. The constitution protects us and our natural rights.

Being a church does not exempt it from laws when they run a secular business, such as a hospital, even when their reasons for doing so are religious.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Of course the Church has to follow the law of the land, but the administration WROTE THE F***ING LAW on purpose to screw over the Church. Of course Catholics ought to be pissed. Is there any doubt about what the administration's intent was in writing the rules for religious exemptions so that they didn't cover Catholic hospitals? How many other institutions are there that oppose contraceptives and employ a lot of people? Sure it all may very well be legal, but geez...

You are out of your mind.

This insane victim complex that has been a staple of the right-wing since the Black Guy took office has gotten way out of hand, and Santorum basically exists to keep stoking those played out memes using tactics circa 2004. It's the type of trolling, basically, that prevents any serious discussion about the topic because it's much more sexy (try not to have any naughty thoughts) to engage in silly faux outrage to fool stupid people into getting all defensive about it.

There is no proof that this Administration has some weird axe to grind on any religious institution that exists. (Except muslims, obviously.)

A church can do whatever they like as long as they follow the rules of being a church. The second they decide to become a hospital, they must follow all the rule of being a hospital. If they became a bank, they would have to follow all the rules of being a bank. If they became a sports team, they would have to follow all the rules of being a sports team. Being religious in nature does not grant any institution carte blanche to run themselves however they decide to run themselves.

You become a hospital, you play by the rules of every other hospital. That is completely logical and fair. If someone doesn't want to actually do what every other doctor does, they shouldn't have become a doctor. I'm consistently amazed by religious people who think their religion grants them immunity from any and all rules. The career does not alter itself just for you.

Why shouldn't every hospital have exactly the same rules of business and exactly the same regulation? If it is right for one, it is right for all. All the Administration has done is force all hospitals, religious or otherwise, to comply with the same sensible medical rules that every other hospital has to abide by. Considering that nearly all women, or at the very least the vast vast majority of them, use contraception, this should not be controversial except for the usual blowhards who know that sound-bytes determine public opinion, not rational explanations.

[Sbane]

BTW, breastfeeding also causes changes in the uterine lining. It makes perfect sense of course, but some masses of cells (which is a life, supposedly) might get excreted without a chance to implant. I suppose we should ban breastfeeding too....it's not like a baby necessarily needs to be breastfed to survive.

[RI]

BTW, breastfeeding also causes changes in the uterine lining. It makes perfect sense of course, but some masses of cells (which is a life, supposedly) might get excreted without a chance to implant. I suppose we should ban breastfeeding too....it's not like a baby necessarily needs to be breastfed to survive.

Generally women tend to be infertile when they're breastfeeding.

[Sbane]

BTW, breastfeeding also causes changes in the uterine lining. It makes perfect sense of course, but some masses of cells (which is a life, supposedly) might get excreted without a chance to implant. I suppose we should ban breastfeeding too....it's not like a baby necessarily needs to be breastfed to survive.

Generally women tend to be infertile when they're breastfeeding.

Yes, because of the same hormonal changes caused by Plan B......let's not forget it's main mechanism of action. Stopping ovulation!

[RI]

BTW, breastfeeding also causes changes in the uterine lining. It makes perfect sense of course, but some masses of cells (which is a life, supposedly) might get excreted without a chance to implant. I suppose we should ban breastfeeding too....it's not like a baby necessarily needs to be breastfed to survive.

Generally women tend to be infertile when they're breastfeeding.

Yes, because of the same hormonal changes caused by Plan B......let's not forget it's main mechanism of action. Stopping ovulation!

Yes, but it's a natural process that serves an important purpose when you're breastfeeding, not when you're taking pills. That's part of the Church's beef on the matter.

[Free Palestine]

BTW, breastfeeding also causes changes in the uterine lining. It makes perfect sense of course, but some masses of cells (which is a life, supposedly) might get excreted without a chance to implant. I suppose we should ban breastfeeding too....it's not like a baby necessarily needs to be breastfed to survive.

Plus, it's gross.

[Joe Republic]

Wait, Santorum went to a Republican rally in Plano, Texas, and talked about the French Revolution and the guillotine?  Jeez, know your audience, Rick.

[Keystone Phil]

Wait, Santorum went to a Republican rally in Plano, Texas, and talked about the French Revolution and the guillotine?  Jeez, know your audience, Rick.

The base fully accepts that Rick is from the intellectual wing of the GOP.

[Politico]

If the Obama Administration really cared about people's health, they would be raising awareness about the increasing prevalence of new cases of HIV/AIDS, and promoting safer sex through using condoms, which also happen to be the most effective form of contraception and the least expensive too (on-the-shelf and no prescription required!).

But no...that might ruffle some feathers in certain corners of the Democratic Party that would like to delude themselves into believing the 1970s are back. Well, we've already seen what this is going to lead to. And then those same folks expect the rest of America to pay for their healthcare down the road when they get sick? What? And the pills they have now to treat HIV, the ones that they didn't have in the 1980s, do not work forever. HIV/AIDS is not diabetes. Even with treatment, it is still a painful, debilitating illness that will cause your body to shutdown one way or another eventually.  Fighting the drugs is eventually leading to heart attacks and liver failure, so the death certificates might say one thing when, in actuality, the cause of death is ultimately HIV/AIDS. It's beyond sickening what is happening right now, especially for those who lost loved ones in the 1980s. The fact that the HIV infection rates are increasing in America is just a complete and utter sin. I cannot believe it.

This thread is, in many ways, about health care in America, and supposedly what is happening has to do with the Obama Administration promoting responsible sex. I don't see that at all because forcing Catholic hospitals to give people the pill is a waste of time when you could be promoting REAL health safety issues. Besides, the whole thing is unconstitutional as the Supreme Court will eventually rule. The federal government does not have the authority to force religious institutions to render services that are not medically necessary and run counter to their religious beliefs. It is just patently clear how the Supreme Court is going to rule here. In the meantime, there is a real public health danger out there that the Obama Administration ought to be talking about, or certainly groups affiliated with Obama ought to be talking about. Pain and suffering could be prevented if they did so. It is telling that nobody on here wants to talk about this, not to mention the silence of the Obama Administration on the issue.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

To theocrats, "religious liberty" = religious law

The freedom to ban legal activities on Sunday

The freedom to accept government funds and discriminate

The freedom to arbitrarily defund programs (sex education, birth control) and organizations (Planned Parenthood) they don't agree with

The freedom to refuse to dispense birth control/contraceptives as a pharmacist because it "violates their conscience"

The freedom to cut off your infant son's foreskin

The freedom to ban gays and lesbians from serving in the military, adopting, and getting married

The freedom to force women to give birth

The "freedom" to live under God's law

Repugnant authoritarians

I was going to respond to Kenobi... but this will do just fine.  

Hey Kenobi... the Bible says to kill your neighbor if he works on Sunday.  We will not allow that.  Are we infringing on your religious freedom by saying you may not go stone your neighbor to death?  

Your (and the Catholic Church's) "freedom" to impose your morals and standards on others is not protected, or implied, or morally just.  

[RI]

To theocrats, "religious liberty" = religious law

The freedom to ban legal activities on Sunday

The freedom to accept government funds and discriminate

The freedom to arbitrarily defund programs (sex education, birth control) and organizations (Planned Parenthood) they don't agree with

The freedom to refuse to dispense birth control/contraceptives as a pharmacist because it "violates their conscience"

The freedom to cut off your infant son's foreskin

The freedom to ban gays and lesbians from serving in the military, adopting, and getting married

The freedom to force women to give birth

The "freedom" to live under God's law

Repugnant authoritarians

I was going to respond to Kenobi... but this will do just fine.  

Hey Kenobi... the Bible says to kill your neighbor if he works on Sunday.  We will not allow that.  Are we infringing on your religious freedom by saying you may not go stone your neighbor to death?  

Your (and the Catholic Church's) "freedom" to impose your morals and standards on others is not protected, or implied, or morally just.  

You clearly know nothing about the Catholic Church or Christianity in general.