Posted on 02/17/2012 1:04:39 PM PST by Mariner
Then why are they falling for Obama's outright LIE that Santorum will attempt to make contraceptives illegal?
(Something that Santorum couldn't even do if he wanted to. It makes as much sense as opposing him because he'll turn the sky purple if he gets elected.)
Either your story is bogus, or the women in your life need a lesson in critical thinking.
check the Planned Parenthood website on how the pill, patch and IUD work. In most situations, a contraceptive will stop the egg from being released or kill the sperm. However, if all that fails, the emergency brake is how these affect the lining of the womb preventing implantation. Again, it’s what’s on the planned parenthood website.
This is the intention of the pill but it often fails. As a backup it prevents implantation of the fertilized egg. This would be an abortion. How often this secondary action occurs is open to debate. But it is fair to say that the pill is abortifacient. I encourage more knowledgeable readers to make my statements more precise.
An IUD before sex prevents fertilisation and is not abortion.
The primary action of an IUD is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The IUD is primarily abortifacient.
You are aware that Catholics voted 54-55% for Obama.
Santorum is not just a Catholic.
This is not just a war on Catholics.
SANTORUM IS A CHRISTIAN..LIKE OTHERS OF US.
THIS IS A WAR ON CHRISTIANS or anyone else who believes in moral authority and responsibility.
sorry..not directed simply at you but I've had enough...it is not about being Catholic simply...birth control pills may be in some instances but the rest is about all of us
None of the Catholics I know care about birth control pills but most do not like abortion ..which is good. They tend to be more socially liberal than Southern Baptists or Southern Church of Christ or MO Synod Lutherans or genuine Pentecostals...but if you take the Latino Catholics out then it improves politically anyhow
I think Santorum can deal with these attacks partly from the leftist abortion loving media and Romney. I do not think he is out of sync on any of these issues except birth control pills...but he has stated over and over it's not his idea to thwart contraception for others...it's his belief between he and his wife
"His" side voting for him isn't a problem. It's getting the tens of millions of people who don't post on Free Republic to vote for him that is at issue here.
Ok! I was clearly unaware about the abortifacient action of the pill. So apologies for calling others misinformed, when it was actually me who was such. Regarding the IUD, from webmd’s website (a better source than planned parenthood perhaps?)
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control
Hormonal IUD. This IUD prevents fertilization by damaging or killing sperm and making the mucus in the cervix thick and sticky, so sperm can’t get through to the uterus. It also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick.3 This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow. The hormones in this IUD also reduce menstrual bleeding and cramping.
Copper IUD. Copper is toxic to sperm. It makes the uterus and fallopian tubes produce fluid that kills sperm. This fluid contains white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins.
I agree with you. Santorum is right on the social issues but right or not, if elected he won’t be doing anything about contraception to hurt women. He very well might do something to curtail abortions which would be all to the good. This election will revolve around jobs and the economy.
Yay! And we can all be proud of Rick Santorum while we watch him give his concession speech.
Remember that once upon a time, Sarah Palin took the heat for her ‘extreme’ social conservative views (eg pro-life even for cases of rape and incest) and her view of G-d’s plan in this world.
And where's Sarah Palin today?
Um, people, we have an election to win. There's issues far more serious than birth control on the table here.
For a change, Mariner, I actually agree with much of what you wrote until the end. An evangelical Christian or conservative Roman Catholic is going to get this kind of vetting via articles picking up on anything they've written that is either 1) outside the mainsteam of Republican Party views, or 2) outside the mainstream of typical general election political discourse.
However, it's not just Santorum who will get these “outside the mainstream” attacks. By definition, anybody who reflects the majority views on Free Republic is “outside the mainstream” of political discourse, as defined by the Democratic Party leadership and by much of the mainstream media.
I happen to think being outside the mainstream is good if it means not being a RINO. Also, regardless of the motives of the reporters involved, this kind of vetting is good. We need to find out any unexpected views Santorum may hold now, not later.
What these reporters are doing is not much different from what I did last year when I discovered after the Republican primary election that the Republican candidate for our Congressional district was a member of a Mennonite church — and that her church had changed its name around election time to a “community church” name that didn't identify its denominational affiliation.
I ended up being a finalist for a national religion reporting award, along with the Washington Post, New York Times, Washington Times, and other major media, for my work covering the ultimately successful campaign of a Mennonite farm wife and former home economics teacher who, as a Republican, defeated the 36-year incumbent Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
After listening to a bunch of her pastor's sermons, and after reading the book that she wrote on Christian politics, and after obtaining church documents congratulating a female member of her local church for joining the Air Force, and after learning that her specific Mennonite denomination left it to the conscience of individual Christians whether they could serve in the military or police rather than regarding all such service as sin, it became clear that the candidate was, if anything, a Christian Zionist when it came to the issue of using military force against enemies. It also became clear that she wasn't violating her church's teachings by agreeing to an offer by Rep. Boehner to appoint her to the House Armed Services Committee if she won her seat. That made a big difference to a lot of voters in this district.
Vetting Santorum is important. Those of us who support Santorum should be glad for that now, because we're definitely going to get it later if he wins the nomination.
But so far, all we're hearing is that he's a conservative Roman Catholic who practices what his church preaches. I see no problem as long as he isn't trying to ban birth control for everybody else — and I think clear statements by Santorum making clear that he's pro-choice on birth control but opposed to child murder will be understandable by most people who would have a realistic chance of voting Republican.
30 posted on Friday, February 17, 2012 3:39:28 PM by ari-freedom: “We have to be proud of conservatives who take conservative stances even if they may be unpopular. Remember that once upon a time, Sarah Palin took the heat for her ‘extreme’ social conservative views (eg pro-life even for cases of rape and incest) and her view of G-d’s plan in this world.”
Ari, you are absolutely right.
The “outside the mainstream” argument was used against Sarah Palin. It will be used against any Republican who is not a RINO. And if the Republican is a RINO, he'll get peppered constantly with questions about whether he's really a closet conservative, like Romney got when he was running for the US Senate and for governor.
If you want to see what kind of Republican is acceptable to the liberals, read this article in the New York Times arguing that the Republican Party's traditional economic conservatives have created a monster they can no longer control, namely, the religious right and the Tea Party, which are distinct but related movements insofar as they're both anti-establishment:
I don't think most people on Free Republic should be surprised that the mainstream media considers our views to be outside the mainstream.
Let's stop talking about whether a candidate's views are in or out of the mainstream, and start talking about 1) whether a candidate's views are correct, and 2) whether the views actually make the candidate unelectable or just cause questions that need to be answered.
Santorum’s views on birth control need to be addressed. They can be addressed, and I think they can be addressed effectively.
Ping to last post. Forgot to CC you all.
I dealt with this in Pseudo Pragmatism. I am not suggesting that Iran is not a problem. It is not the greatest threat out there.
William Flax
I'd be happy to offer you the opportunity to give them that lesson in critical thinking, but I'd like to go fishing while you try:)
I, however, agree with you on the causation question.
William Flax
The hormone dispersed by the plastic IUD Mirena is Levonorgestrel, which also happens to be the main ingredient in the “Morning After” Pill.
God
Israel appreciates your concern.
So 75% of women want to KILL THEIR BABIES??? That’s pretty much what you are saying, and sadly, you are correct.
Anne Romney gives a lot of money to PLANNED PARENTHOOD.
Anne Romney gives a lot of money to PLANNED PARENTHOOD.
What we don't know is whether Santorum is ignorant of that also, or if he does know but believes it would be an unpopular stand.
If he is ignorant of the abortifacient action and becomes aware, how does that affect his stance on birth control? If if he knows, is he avoiding because it could be a political hot potato?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.