Are GOP Candidates Against Birth Control?

Feb 23, 2012 Full story: 146

Topix Staff Story

Last night’s GOP debate saw a surprising amount of consensus on the evils of birth control.

“Which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why?” asked host Jonathan King - a question clearly aimed at Santorum’s unfashionable approach to contraception.

The audience loudly booed, and the other candidates, who’d previously been tearing each other a new one over fiscal issues, closed ranks and defended Santorum. Gingrich explained that Obama was the dangerous radical on sexual health matters, not Santorum:

In the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. OK? So let's be clear here. If we're going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama.

The question referred to a moment late last year, when Santorum promised to talk about what "no president has talked about before - the dangers of contraception." Speaking at last night’s debate, Santorum elaborated on these dangers:

Children being born out of wedlock in America, teens who are sexually active…children being raised by children… The family is fracturing.

Weigh in: does Santorum have a point – has contraception contributed to the decline of two-parent families?

Full Story
First Prev
of 8
Next Last
Edgar

Spring, TX

#1 Feb 23, 2012
What a bag of rocks Gingrich is...

“Kiss Me You Fool!”

Since: Jan 08

Atlanta via Brooklyn NY

#2 Feb 23, 2012
Only the one's who want to pander to the very farthest rightwinger. But even repub men appreciate and take advantage of birth control.

“Kiss Me You Fool!”

Since: Jan 08

Atlanta via Brooklyn NY

#3 Feb 23, 2012
The bad thing for repubs is this decision has been dealt with decades ago.

There is a whole generation of voters that see this as TAKING AWAY A RIGHT THEY'VE HAD ALL THEIR LIFE.

And no one likes having rights taken away.
1 post removed
Questioner

Llano, TX

#5 Feb 23, 2012
does Santorum have a point – has contraception contributed to the decline of two-parent families?

I offer the opponents of birth control a test for the depth of their conviction:

How many unwanted children (presumably those the mother/family is unable to financially support) is each opponent of contraception willing to adopt if a woman does not practice birth control?

correlary: how many of their children are adopted?

poorly worded, but I hope you get the idea ...

“your life is great”

Since: Aug 09

you poop in clean water

#6 Feb 23, 2012
does Santorum have a point – has contraception contributed to the decline of two-parent families?

Ironically, if every unmarried person were on birth control, his "40%" would be a much much smaller number.
Yup

Burlington, MA

#7 Feb 23, 2012
Right wing nutjobs are such m o r o n s.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#8 Feb 23, 2012
OneRyder wrote:
Only the one's who want to pander to the very farthest rightwinger. But even repub men appreciate and take advantage of birth control.
Not often enough. There's way to many ignorant teabaggers around.
political circles

Palm Harbor, FL

#9 Feb 23, 2012
Willard Romney now wants to have it out with Santorum. He feels he has an edge by putting WD-40 on the zipper of his fly.
NotaproductofTex as

Broken Arrow, OK

#10 Feb 23, 2012
anneutral wrote:
does Santorum have a point – has contraception contributed to the decline of two-parent families?
Ironically, if every unmarried person were on birth control, his "40%" would be a much much smaller number.
according to his moronic wealthy backer, a woman only has to put an aspirin between her knees....
Santorum is a product of his own inbreeding. For CENTURIES, this has been the cross of ONLY WOMEN to bear. Men can "pollenate" the whole county, and walk away...but women carry the burden and responsibility. That being said, if MEN don't want to step up and be men, ie, put their money where their penis has been, then they can just schtupp elsewhere. HOw quickly do you think this issue would fade, should women demand that for every forced ultrasound before seeking abortion, or for every denied morning after pill, a man would have to undergo a full cardiac workup, and watch a 30 minute video of the dangers of Viagra/Ciais all at their own expense, before they get the little blue pill for their erectile dysfunction problem. Fair'sfair...in love/sex/and war...
SO, if Rick, Newt, Mitt, and Ron ( sounds lik a rock group) want to dictate to me the inner workings of my uterus, my menstrual cycle, my endometrial treatment, my fibroidal tumor treatment, and yes, perhaps my unwanted pregnancies, they are only able to comment when they, themselves sign up for the first class on mandatory Erectile Dysfunction education. Until then, they can go pound sand. My ovaries, my uterus, and my menstural cycle is MINE...as is the products and outcomes thereof. If they wish to participate in the aforementioned, then they need to show up, be a PARENT, and grow a spine to go with their over inflated bloviating egos and PAY for that child throughout it's life... otherwise, they are nothing but panderers/whoring themselves out to the right wing talebangical/catholics that FOR YEARS have cloaked themselves in hypocrisy and ignorance. Remember, it was the catholic church who locked up Galileo for going against their flat lander beliefs that the Earth was the center of the universe, not the Sun....this should be your first sign that most of these dorks couldn't find their own penises without a map, a compass, and someone to point it out to them! NO THANK YOU...I won't invade your penile implant space, if you'll stay the hell out of my uterus.
SMALLER GOVERNMENT?? REALLY?? I thought my bedroom was nobody's business...but apparently, the GOP would like to fit their smaller government into my uterus for all eternity. No thanks, I like it just the way it is!
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#11 Feb 23, 2012
OneRyder wrote:
Only the one's who want to pander to the very farthest rightwinger. But even repub men appreciate and take advantage of birth control.
Pelosi and the rest of the 'progressive' whack-jobs obfuscate the issue to appeal to the lowest common denominator of intelligence on the left. Thinking people know that the right isn't trying to *ban* birth control; they don't want people who have religious objections to it to have to pay for it for those who choose to use it.

NO ONE IS TRYING TO BAN CONTRACEPTION.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#12 Feb 23, 2012
Growing up in the days before the pill, sex before marriage was presented as a bad idea because you could get pregnant. And that, of course, meant the end of life. With the availability of a form of contraception that didn't inconvenience guys, and could be implemented completely separate from the actual act, that particular argument fell to shreds. What did not change was the basic inclination towards copulation.

So--did the pill change behaviors? Certainly.

But, insofar as women electing to have children without a husband, it seems far more likely that increasing access to education and employment, along with some salary improvement, is more likely to have had an impact. Only incidentally can the pill be blamed for this one. Back in the day, women had an employment disadvantage as it was assumed that they would soon become pregnant and leave--particularly if they were married.

So--a generation of women has willingly shouldered a double load (work and family) in order to earn for our daughters to be seen as workers equal in earning power to men. Some of us ain't to eager to see that fall apart. Nor, are we very willing to sign on to the notion that the best way to get a man is to withhold sex until married. If they are only signing on for the sex, well then, screw them!

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#13 Feb 23, 2012
Far Away wrote:
<quoted text>
Pelosi and the rest of the 'progressive' whack-jobs obfuscate the issue to appeal to the lowest common denominator of intelligence on the left. Thinking people know that the right isn't trying to *ban* birth control; they don't want people who have religious objections to it to have to pay for it for those who choose to use it.
NO ONE IS TRYING TO BAN CONTRACEPTION.
Apparently they are counting on Rome to do it for them.

Since: Sep 08

Placitas, NM

#14 Feb 23, 2012
The old white male bible- thumpers and mackerel snappers hate women....They are threatened by women.
Makes sense

Dearborn, MI

#15 Feb 23, 2012
No, that's too narrow. They are against ALL SEX, UNLESS you are MARRIED to someone of the OPPOSITE GENDER AND you are doing it to MAKE BABIES.

No sex for pleasure, just for making babies with hubby or wife.

WISE UP, the American TALIBAN is COMING (poor choice of words?) and wants to get all up into your business, probe your vagina for developing fetuses.

NO PRIVACY RIGHTS especially if a BUSINESS wants to track your every key stroke, while you stroke.

Get used to it or VOTE them OUT. Defeat the American TALIBAN!!!

We the People need to SUPPORT OUR CONSTITUTION.

“Historic American President”

Since: Jun 07

Immigration Reformed!

#16 Feb 23, 2012
These non-presidential potential republican nominees are against contraception, Blacks, Latinos, women, the middle class and the poor… I still cannot believe that they were stupid enough to take the bait and make their true feelings and desires known, LOL…
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#17 Feb 23, 2012
OneRyder wrote:
The bad thing for repubs is this decision has been dealt with decades ago.
There is a whole generation of voters that see this as TAKING AWAY A RIGHT THEY'VE HAD ALL THEIR LIFE.
And no one likes having rights taken away.
very sensible comment. also, one has to face the complication that people do not like having privileges taken away that they should not have been given in the first place (like state-mandated prayer in public schools, which are unconstitutional). you are correct as a practical matter. but in each case one does have some obligation to consider whether it really is a right. in the case of contraception, it certainly should be a right of the individual. just because the Constitution did not spell out in detail every right an individual has, does not mean the individual does not have that right. in the case of abortion, the courts have been refining on what they consider to be a right for several decades. It does not involve only the right to privacy, and many people consider that there are right to life issues involved - though some may take one extreme view and others may take a flexible centrist view (which causes vagueness and controversy, but may actually be the most sensible way to approach the issue).
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#18 Feb 23, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently they are counting on Rome to do it for them.
I agree, funny, star and helpful!
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#19 Feb 23, 2012
Makes sense wrote:
No, that's too narrow. They are against ALL SEX, UNLESS you are MARRIED to someone of the OPPOSITE GENDER AND you are doing it to MAKE BABIES.
No sex for pleasure, just for making babies with hubby or wife.
WISE UP, the American TALIBAN is COMING (poor choice of words?) and wants to get all up into your business, probe your vagina for developing fetuses.
NO PRIVACY RIGHTS especially if a BUSINESS wants to track your every key stroke, while you stroke.
Get used to it or VOTE them OUT. Defeat the American TALIBAN!!!
We the People need to SUPPORT OUR CONSTITUTION.
OK - let's be clear what you mean. We the People is a big tea-party cry, like the folks who tried to steal the American flag and make it a GOP symbol. I assume you are not using a code word to tell us you are a tea party supporter.

Your choice of words was funny. Do you use the term talibangelical or talivangelical? or both?

I think you are a civil libertarian against big corporate intrusion into our lives, and also against the use of government to enforce some religious moralistic view, especially about sex, which seems to be a fixation of the fundies - i e religious rightwing.

Am I correct? What do you think of the sort of libertarian who only yells about abuses socalled for partisan purposes, as so many right-wing types do? Do you have any fear that progressives may be too suspicious on the one hand, or too trusting on the other hand, about the signing statement that Obama issued - Presidential right to detail suspected citizen terrorists issue? I think I will be interested in your opinions.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#20 Feb 23, 2012
Marine Corp Pat wrote:
These non-presidential potential republican nominees are against contraception, Blacks, Latinos, women, the middle class and the poor… I still cannot believe that they were stupid enough to take the bait and make their true feelings and desires known, LOL…
Hi Pat. come now, of course you can believe they were stupid enough! Huntsman got very little support for being smart. why not try the other extreme and court the rightwing fundie gOP base? the economic conservatives may not like it much, but they have no place else to go, to get the taxes for the superrich cut further, except the gOP.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#21 Feb 23, 2012
PlacitasRoy wrote:
The old white male bible- thumpers and mackerel snappers hate women....They are threatened by women.
I suspect you are correct, and must make a slight objection to the colorful language, just to be on the side of politeness and cordiality. But the objection is not thunderous!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 8 min Fossilfarts 22,893
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 8 min Sunnier 280,942
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min Historian 126,126
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 9 min woodtick57 806
Obama sets off on a sales mission on immigration 9 min Le Duped 12
Why Elizabeth Warren would be a very dangerous ... 10 min Grubbing Grubers 24
Obama's Amnesty Pushes Blacks Aside 11 min Le Duped 150
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min Morse 1,141,247
Obama to detail his executive action on immigra... 22 min unknown 83
Obama to send 1,500 more troops to Iraq as camp... 2 hr Dubya Tee Eff 220

US Politics People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE