New look at the “benefits” of contraception?

posted at 3:21 pm on March 20, 2014 by Dustin Siggins

Since the Griswold Supreme Court decision in 1965, contraception has become integrated into almost every facet of American culture. Whole industries have sprung up around it, and governments and schools around the nation spend millions giving contraception out for “free.” And, of course, the federal government is now saying almost every single business and non-profit organization in America must provide it for “free” to employees.

Which makes some recent noise in mainstream media sources about the harms of contraception quite interesting, and potentially very effective to spreading the word about the real harms of contraception to women. First it was former Winter Olympics hopeful and former Townhall.com intern Megan Henry — sidelined due to use of the intrauterine device NuVaRing — whose joining of a class-action lawsuit against NuVaRing parent company Merck Pharmaceuticals made news across the country.

Then there was a 10,000-word essay from Vanity Fair, which asked “why, despite evidence of serious risk, a potentially lethal contraceptive remains on the market.” And Ricki Lake’s documentary on hormonal contraception and “the unexposed side effects of these powerful medications” is getting backlash from writers at Jezebel.com and Slate.

Registered nurse and pro-life activist Jill Stanek told me this exposure is no surprise, delayed though it is:

“In 2005, the World Health Organization classified the morning-after pill as a Class 1 carcinogen — as dangerous as cigarette smoke and asbestos,” Stanek said. “With all of the studies showing links between oral contraception and greater chances of glaucoma, heart risk and breast-cancer risk, it’s amazing any women use them. And the NuvaRing lawsuit shows how dangerous hormonal contraception is.”

“The American people are belatedly finding out from the mainstream media just how far we’ve gone off the path of proper care of the bodies of women,” stated Stanek. She said media attention to the issue, as well prominent political attention to issues like the HHS contraception mandate, has created “a perfect storm for greater knowledge by women about why they should use better wisdom and responsibility in their sexual practices.”

The harm of contraception is also seen on the unborn, despite claims by the left that contraception lowers abortion rates:

Is increased contraception use related to a decline in abortion rates and occurrences? According to (Live Action’s Libby] Barnes, a look at other nations shows increased contraception use declines abortions only after decades of increasing them – and the new rate is much higher than the old one.

In other words, contraception only lowers abortion rates from abnormally high levels, not overall.

The grievous harms of contraception to the bodies of women are not just seen in the traditional physical sense. As Ed pointed out when we discussed this topic at CPAC, there is also great harm to “human dignity,” something the Catholic Church was ridiculed for predicting 45 years ago:

“If you want to know how harmful [contraception] is, go back to Humanae Vitae,” says Morrissey, “in which basically the Pope predicted everything that followed. At the time, he was ridiculed. … He basically predicted the explosion of pornography, abuse – not just abuse in the legal sense that we talk about it, but in terms of using people in a disposable sense, for fleeting moments of sensory pleasure, which is an affront to human dignity, which is at the center of our faith.”

Obviously, women won’t stop using birth control overnight — and their male sex partners aren’t likely to ask them to stop — but it’s important that young women receive all of the facts surrounding the use of contraception. This is especially true as the HHS mandate forces coverage of products with literally deadly potential.

Update (Dustin): A family physician who reads Hot Air e-mailed that my post had a couple of factual errors. In re-examining the post, I did have one, though I will address his other points as well:

1. I mistakenly said NuVaRing is an intrauterine device. It is, in fact, an intravaginal device.

2. He pointed out that many contraceptives have blood clot risks. This is true, and points to more evidence that contraceptives are harmful to the health of women.

3. According to this physician, NuVaRing has about the same risk factor for thrombosis as a number of other contraceptives. Again, this point from the doctor is well-taken, and shows more reason for women to avoid contraception.

4. The physician accused me of insinuating that Megan Henry’s joining the class-action lawsuit against Merck is an indicator of guilt, but in fact all I did was state that a woman who was harmed by NuVaRing has made news for both her illness and for joining the class-action lawsuit against Merck.

A Merck spokesperson has informed me that the settlement offer to the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit does not admit guilt.

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7

And of course, if you have a personal religious objection, don’t use BC.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 11:17 AM
.

Done, now can you tell your friends on the left to stop making me pay for Sandra Fluke’s BCP as well? Or how about mandating private companies pay for it?

melle1228 on March 21, 2014 at 11:21 AM

.
It’s quite simply impossible and impractical to parse out your ‘contributions’ via taxation for any government services/benefits offered. I suppose you could get in line behind anyone/everyone else who objects to anything the govt’ pays for – but it’d be a very very long line.
So it’s a silly argument.
Citizenship isn’t a custom ordered menu.
You are afforded the opportunity to participate – not the ability to rule.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 12:09 PM

.
? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? !

What the (expletive) does THAT even mean ?

That sounds (reads) deliberately ‘obscured’ and “camoflaged”.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM

Enough stupidity…

Murphy9 on March 21, 2014 at 12:20 PM

AJsDaddie on March 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM

And then we have the case of honest disagreements. On facts and attitudes and opinions.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 12:21 PM

? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? !

What the (expletive) does THAT even mean ?

That sounds (reads) deliberately ‘obscured’ and “camoflaged”.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM

Verbie is a good and smart poster, but I do have to chuckle with the post you quoted when viewed in the context of his earlier post concerning hidden agendas. Now Verbie, before you mention my hidden agenda(s) and such once again……….I will openly admit that I have so many hidden agendas; I had to build a 3rd level on our home to store them!

HonestLib on March 21, 2014 at 12:28 PM

not the ability to rule.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Incorrect.

Bmore on March 21, 2014 at 12:28 PM

I’ve watched this thread all day with amazement. No wonder there is such a backlash against socons within the party. Many of you (you know who you are) have to be the most rude, ignorant and generally unlikeable people on HotAir. You can’t have a discussion without insults; seems Westboro Baptist Church has infiltrated the website.

Tater Salad on March 20, 2014 at 11:12 PM

We’re also the people most vehemently against Obamunism and in favor of small and limited government.

Why is that, Tater Salad? Why do RINOs like yourself consider social conservatives so awful and Barack Obama so awesome? We’ve never seen you or Mitchy-poo or John Boy McCain or Limp Boehner vow to crush Obama, call Obama a whacko bird, or set out to destroy Obama the way you do social conservatives?

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Now Verbie’, before you mention my hidden agenda(s) and such once again……….I will openly admit that I have so many hidden agendas; I had to build a 3rd level on our home to store them!

HonestLib on March 21, 2014 at 12:28 PM

.
Wow . . . . . apparently I am “hidden agenda” deficient.
.
Now I feel so inferior . . . : (

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 12:32 PM

AJsDaddie on March 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM

And then we have the case of honest disagreements. On facts and attitudes and opinions.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 12:21 PM

I didn’t see any honest disagreement, just some childish comments about how I want to outlaw sex.

AJsDaddie on March 21, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Wow . . . . . apparently I am “hidden agenda” deficient.
.
Now I feel so inferior . . . : (

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Yeah, I forgot to hide my agendas, and the squirrels got ‘em… :(

AJsDaddie on March 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM

AJsDaddie on March 21, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Followed by a sarc tag (/s). Get it?

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 12:34 PM

It’s quite simply impossible and impractical to parse out your ‘contributions’ via taxation for any government services/benefits offered. I suppose you could get in line behind anyone/everyone else who objects to anything the govt’ pays for – but it’d be a very very long line.
So it’s a silly argument.
Citizenship isn’t a custom ordered menu.
You are afforded the opportunity to participate – not the ability to rule.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 12:09 PM

It’s very simple, you psychotic fascist.

If you can ban me from buying Happy Meals and soda, I can ban you from purchasing contraception.

You have stated flatly that no one has any right to purchase anything that the government decides they shouldn’t have and that the government is all powerful.

Now we need to use that to crush you and your pathetic fascist friends under your own boot heels.

Republican state governments should immediately audit all registered Democrats for ten years of back taxes and sicc every single state agency on every single Democrat-owned business and donor.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 12:34 PM

HonestLib on March 21, 2014 at 12:28 PM

AJsDaddie on March 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM

.
Where can I get these “hidden agendas”? … WalMart ? KMart ? …
Some “wholesale club/store” like Costcos ? … Or maybe Amazon.com ?

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 12:42 PM

? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? !

What the (expletive) does THAT even mean ?

That sounds (reads) deliberately ‘obscured’ and “camoflaged”.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM

Sorry if you felt confused.
I looked back…Bmore seems to follow.
But my bad if it isn’t clear.
I was responding to a commenter saying ‘don’t make me pay for BC!!’.
I’m saying you can change that by electing people who will successfully legislate that. But you’re also not able to choose to not ‘pay for’ missles or Obama teleprompters or border agents or wheelchairs for medicare recipients.
Follow?
The other option is to become a citizen of another country that where tax revenue isn’t used in any way for any contraception.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 12:45 PM

It’s very simple, you psychotic fascist.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 12:34 PM

It is.
But Maybe not so much for you.
And I have no desire at all to ban you from buying Happy meals and soda.
(But Happy Meals? How old are you anyway?)

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 12:48 PM

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 12:45 PM

There is a difference to be considered. The other items you described are government expenditures. The contraceptive issue is based on an Obamacare mandate requiring that private entities must purchase them.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM

not the ability to rule.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Incorrect.

Bmore on March 21, 2014 at 12:28 PM

How so?
You understand I’m referring to individuals?
It’s ‘we the people’, not ‘I the person’.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Where can I get these “hidden agendas”? … WalMart ? KMart ? …
Some “wholesale club/store” like Costcos ? … Or maybe Amazon.com ?

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Damn, I need to find some hidden agendas.. Of course, I have been accused of having some… Not sure how, since I am pretty plain spoken. Gonna have to build a bunker to fit some agendas in..

There is a difference to be considered. The other items you described are government expenditures. The contraceptive issue is based on an Obamacare mandate requiring that private entities must purchase them.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Exactly!

melle1228 on March 21, 2014 at 12:57 PM

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 12:45 PM

There is a difference to be considered. The other items you described are government expenditures. The contraceptive issue is based on an Obamacare mandate requiring that private entities must purchase them.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Fair point. Certainly a distinction with a difference.
But Medicare is also a mandate. And to the original concern, so is income tax.
So a bit of a full circle there.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:08 PM

How so?
You understand I’m referring to individuals?
It’s ‘we the people’, not ‘I the person’.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Then you will agree that welfare benefits should be taxed, since “we the people” should all be required to contribute.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 1:08 PM

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:08 PM

You are stretching the term “mandate” to obscure the point. Not an impressive rebuttal.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 1:11 PM

AJsDaddie on March 21, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Followed by a sarc tag (/s). Get it?

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Ah, I understand now. An ad hominem followed by a sarcasm tag is what you call “honest disagreement”.

Sorry, but I think those words don’t mean what you think they mean.

AJsDaddie on March 21, 2014 at 1:11 PM

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 1:08 PM

You’re not making sense.
Respond/comment to the context in which something is said.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:11 PM

It is.
But Maybe not so much for you.
And I have no desire at all to ban you from buying Happy meals and soda.
(But Happy Meals? How old are you anyway?)

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 12:48 PM

Oh, so you admit Michelle Obama is a psychotic fascist, because she wants to ban purchasing Happy Meals and soda.

Which makes her a hypocrite, since she’s a fat pig who has been caught on camera repeatedly stuffing her face with hamburgers and fries.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 1:11 PM

You’re not making sense.
Respond/comment to the context in which something is said.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:11 PM

I am making perfect sense.

It is you who are being hypocritical by demanding that those who live on welfare such as yourself be exempted from paying your “fair share” in taxes.

Why is that? Why should people like yourself who choose to live on welfare instead of working be exempt from taxes, especially when you demand government provide you an income equivalent to working?

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Then all that needs to be said is “No, contraception should be legal”.

Tater Salad on March 21, 2014 at 10:31 AM

No one is arguing otherwise. There are several miles between “artificial contraception is totally awesome, every employer should be made to provide it, and every woman should be using it” and “we need to ban contraception.”

bmmg39 on March 21, 2014 at 1:18 PM

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:08 PM

You are stretching the term “mandate” to obscure the point. Not an impressive rebuttal.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 1:11 PM

No…to illuminate.
You understand where this started?
Someone saying they didn’t want to pay for ‘Sandra Fluke’s BC!’…other saying they don’t want to ‘pay’ for someone to have sex.
My rebuttal is to them.
I’m happy to shift to whatever issue/point you’re trying to drag me to – but you’ll need to say what that is.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:18 PM

I am making perfect sense.

It is you who are being hypocritical by demanding that those who live on welfare such as yourself be exempted from paying your “fair share” in taxes.

Why is that? Why should people like yourself who choose to live on welfare instead of working be exempt from taxes, especially when you demand government provide you an income equivalent to working?

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 1:13 PM

BS and OT.
And..WTF are you talking about?
(‘people like yourself who choose to live on welfare’)

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:20 PM

The values of Humanæ vitae have caused great suffering and are objectively evil. “Objective evil” is used often in Humanae vitae and we should remember that objective evil is made manifest in among other things the pain–both psychological and physical–of other people. The values of Humanae vitae may very well have cause more pain than even those of the Communist Manifesto.

The values of Humanae vitae lead to twenty centuries of the torture and murder of gay people–by both vigilantism and state murder. We don’t even know how many gays were burnt to death because they would often burn the records of the trial. Mr. Siggins writes for lifesitenews which is always ready with an article supporting some new law in Russia or Africa which will lead to the murder and torture of gay people in those countries today. Any person who relentlessly toils in the support of murder and torture of real, living people–not fetuses–is objectively evil. The values of Humanae vitae have made so many children feel guilt about what should be a moment of great joy for them, the moments of their masturbatory orgasm. In the past, the values of Humanae vitae have lead parents, schoolmasters, and nannies to sadistically torture young boys for masturbating. Masturbation was punished in Victorian England schools by birching, which was far worse than caning. (Admittedly, the values of Humanae vitae also lead to the invention of the Graham cracker and corn flakes as a way to stop boys from masturbation.) Even some adults feel guilt over masturbation. The values of Humanae vitae ignore that we share the planet with many other creatures who are in danger of extinction because their habitat is being taken away from them due to human population pressures. While killing off enough other species to be qualify what we are doing as an ecocide is probably not in the human race’s long interest, shouldn’t we value all the life on this planet even if it isn’t self-interested?

thuja on March 21, 2014 at 1:22 PM

BS and OT.
And..WTF are you talking about?
(‘people like yourself who choose to live on welfare’)

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Totally on topic.

You scream and kick and cry and demand other people be forced to pay your bills, but you don’t want to pay taxes.

And you choose to live on welfare. You could get a job and pay your own bills if you wanted to, but like the vast majority of Obama supporters, you’re a lazy piece of trash with no education or work ethic who wants to mooch off other peoples’ labor.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Where can I get these “hidden agendas”? … WalMart ? KMart ? …
Some “wholesale club/store” like Costcos ? … Or maybe Amazon.com ?

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 12:42 PM

.
Damn, I need to find some hidden agendas.. Of course, I have been accused of having some… Not sure how, since I am pretty plain spoken. Gonna have to build a bunker to fit some agendas in..

melle1228 on March 21, 2014 at 12:57 PM

.
I just hafta “keep up with the Jonses”, you know ?

“Pleasant Valley Sunday”, and all that.

There is no greater feeling of insecurity, than your friends and neighbors having “more than you.”
.
Great … I just blew up that ‘sarcasm meter’, myself.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 1:27 PM

thuja on March 21, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Oh good, the LGBT spokesperson is here to tell us about how they want children to masturbate in schools.

News flash, thuja; the fact that you were sexualized as a child is probably why you have so many hangups about sex and self-control now. NORMAL children don’t have these problems; you have them because your childhood wasn’t normal, and instead of acknowledging that, you have to try to insist that growing up without an obsessive focus on masturbation and sex is ABNORMAL.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 1:30 PM

And you choose to live on welfare. You could get a job and pay your own bills if you wanted to, but like the vast majority of Obama supporters, you’re a lazy piece of trash with no education or work ethic who wants to mooch off other peoples’ labor.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 1:26 PM

I’ll ask again…and then let you be –
what are you talking about…that I live on welfare?
Is this some angle you’re working?

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:30 PM

The values of Humanae vitae lead to twenty centuries of the torture and murder of gay people–by both vigilantism and state murder.

thuja on March 21, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Heh. Hyperbolic conflate much?

Since Humanæ vitae was written by Pope Paul VI in 1968, I don’t think it caused 20 centuries of anything.

The values of Humanae vitae ignore that we share the planet with many other creatures who are in danger of extinction because their habitat is being taken away from them due to human population pressures.

Yes indeed. Save the whales, kill the babies!

AJsDaddie on March 21, 2014 at 1:32 PM

thuja on March 21, 2014 at 1:22 PM
northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Great…a masturbation debate.
This will be entertaining.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:33 PM

Since Humanæ vitae was written by Pope Paul VI in 1968, I don’t think it caused 20 centuries of anything.

Facts and reality be damned!

The libertines have a false narrative to drive!

Murphy9 on March 21, 2014 at 1:33 PM

Yes indeed. Save the whales, kill the babies!

AJsDaddie on March 21, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Isn’t it funny how people like thuja who say animals’ lives are more valuable than humans are never willing to kill themselves in support of their goals?

It’s like the “global warming” idiots who fly to conferences in private jets.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 1:34 PM

The values of Humanae vitae ignore that we share the planet with many other creatures who are in danger of extinction because their habitat is being taken away from them due to human population pressures.

Yes indeed. Save the whales, kill the babies!

AJsDaddie on March 21, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Ha!
That cracked me up.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:35 PM

I’ll ask again…and then let you be –
what are you talking about…that I live on welfare?
Is this some angle you’re working?

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Yep.

I’m pointing out for all your shrieking about “we the people”, you don’t want to pay your bills and you demand that you be exempted from paying your “fair share” in taxes, even though you demand that the government give you the same income as if you were working.

What you are is a moocher. You’re lazy and worthless, which is why Barack Obama appeals to you; he too is a lazy worthless moocher who has never worked for a living and does nothing but demand other people pay his bills.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 1:36 PM

The values of Humanae vitae lead to twenty centuries of the torture and murder of gay people–by both vigilantism and state murder.

thuja on March 21, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Heh. Hyperbolic conflate much?

Since Humanæ vitae was written by Pope Paul VI in 1968, I don’t think it caused 20 centuries of anything.

AJsDaddie on March 21, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Good thing I didn’t write that Humanae vitae caused 20 centuries of anything. It is best if you reply to something I actually wrote rather than the fantasies floating around your head.

thuja on March 21, 2014 at 1:43 PM

I’m pointing out for all your shrieking about “we the people”, you don’t want to pay your bills and you demand that you be exempted from paying your “fair share” in taxes, even though you demand that the government give you the same income as if you were working.

What you are is a moocher. You’re lazy and worthless, which is why Barack Obama appeals to you; he too is a lazy worthless moocher who has never worked for a living and does nothing but demand other people pay his bills.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Oh…an angle then.
You know that regardless of the issues, politics, etc. –
you’re kind of a jerk, right?
Yawn.
Carry on wayward ranter.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:45 PM

I’m saying that it’s disingenuous to suggest you object because of possible harmful side effect.

But what if I do? What if I have objections on several grounds? Should I submit them for your approval?

If your objection is based in some religious reading, or what you deem to be ‘traditional moral sensibilities’ – then that should be your argument.

Says you. Usually bad ideas are bad ideas for more than one reason.

Looking to rationalize your opposition as based on a secondary concern simply indicates an inability to successfully argue your primary reasoning.

I have no compunction about doing that as you may have noticed. However, when people argue public policy based on religious grounds, you disallow those arguments too. I guess you think you have us coming and going.

And for me – my traditional moral sensibilities – safe and available contraception is morally imperative.

What transcendent standard led to that conclusion?

If any device is unsafe, than it should be made safe. I assume you don’t advocate against anyone ever using cars because of the GM recall?

No, the moral issue there is with GM, not cars themselves. If, however, I had a moral objection to locomotion, I should be expected to employ GM’s cavalier attitude towards is customers’ well being as an argument against it.

And of course, if you have a personal religious objection, don’t own slaves use BC. verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Akzed on March 21, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Trollapalooza.

kingsjester on March 21, 2014 at 1:57 PM

Good thing I didn’t write that Humanae vitae caused 20 centuries of anything. It is best if you reply to something I actually wrote rather than the fantasies floating around your head.

thuja on March 21, 2014 at 1:43 PM

No what you wrote was even more egregiously indefensible, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Your assertion is that whatever various persecutions occurred during the last two millenia are somehow related to Pope Paul’s encyclical on contraception. Only someone who is virulently anti-religion would even try that stretch.

But please, play on!

AJsDaddie on March 21, 2014 at 1:58 PM

Oh…an angle then.
You know that regardless of the issues, politics, etc. –
you’re kind of a jerk, right?
Yawn.
Carry on wayward ranter.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Of course.

Screaming bratty children think that anyone who doesn’t give them their way is a jerk.

Which is why, when you allow screaming bratty children to run society, you end up with losers like Barack Obama.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Someone saying they didn’t want to pay for ‘Sandra Fluke’s BC!’…other saying they don’t want to ‘pay’ for someone to have sex. My rebuttal is to them. I’m happy to shift to whatever issue/point you’re trying to drag me to – but you’ll need to say what that is. verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Since you’re not so stupid as to see these two points as wholly unrelated, the only other possibility is that you are obfuscating because that’s all you got. IOW, you’re playing dumb, which you’ve shown no shortage of will for around here.

Akzed on March 21, 2014 at 2:02 PM

No…to illuminate.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:18 PM

So, we can agree that you have stretched the term.

The fact remains that the Obamacare mandate is not something collected by the government and then dispersed to pay for a good or service. It is the the requirement of private entities to make a purchase.

The difference is significant and the reason that Hobby Lobby has been able to take their case to the SCOTUS. I hope that SCOTUS does the right thing and upholds Hobby Lobby’s 1st Amendment rights.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 2:03 PM

No what you wrote was even more egregiously indefensible, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Your assertion is that whatever various persecutions occurred during the last two millenia are somehow related to Pope Paul’s encyclical on contraception. Only someone who is virulently anti-religion would even try that stretch.

But please, play on!

AJsDaddie on March 21, 2014 at 1:58 PM

The hilarity of thuja’s frenzied argument can be expressed as such:

1) thuja enjoys and wants children to masturbate in public and in school

2) Humanae Vitae frowns on such things

3) Therefore Humanae Vitae is objectively evil because it frowns on things that thuja enjoys and wants.

This is moral relativism at its height. Whatever you want is right and correct and good, whatever you don’t is wrong and awful and evil. There are no objective standards that apply to everyone, just pure narcissistic self-interest.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Great…a masturbation debate.
This will be entertaining.

verbaluce on March 21, 2014 at 1:33 PM

And that is my cue to exit the thread.. LOL

melle1228 on March 21, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Contraception will never be banned.

Abortion will never be banned.

That’s the only reason these kinds of columns get posted. To drop that carrot in front of you.

If only we could individually choose as taxpayers where our tax dollars go. That’s a real fantasy. I have my own list. So do you.

Moesart on March 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM

“If you want to know how harmful [contraception] is, go back to Humanae Vitae,” says Morrissey, “in which basically the Pope predicted everything that followed. At the time, he was ridiculed. … He basically predicted the explosion of pornography, abuse – not just abuse in the legal sense that we talk about it, but in terms of using people in a disposable sense, for fleeting moments of sensory pleasure, which is an affront to human dignity, which is at the center of our faith.”

Listening to the Pope about sex is like listening to a Vegen instructing us how to prepare the perfect steak.

Pablo Honey on March 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM

ND30 is probably the most unhinged poster on HotAir – stop being so angry and insulting all the time; we probably agree on lots of issues but your rabid posts make me weary of associating with you, and on top of that, do you really expect to convert anyone with such hateful rhetoric?

Federati on March 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Finally . . . . . (found it an hour ago, then had to run to the store for the battle-axe, I mean WIFE)
.

What “liberty” ? … On what basis, and by what authority do you claim that we have ANY “liberty” that we can “sacrifice” ?

Unless you can show me where you got your “liberty”, you are presumed to have NONE.

No one except the ‘elite’ can “consent to be governed”, because they’re the only people with the power of “liberty”.

You have no liberty, you cannot “consent” to be governed, you are a “serf”.
.
Putting it another way … You did NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

(original)
listens2glenn on March 11, 2014 at 11:23 PM
(re-posted)
listens2glenn on March 20, 2014 at 9:50 PM

Jefferson’s and my own philosophy concerning the basis of our claims to equality and liberty are based on the works of John Locke. Look it up.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 7:11 AM

.
Disclaimer : . . . I have NOT personally read Vol. XV of The Writings of Thomas Jefferson … yet

“Locke’s Two Treatises of Government were heavily relied upon by the American Founding Fathers. In fact, signer of the Declaration Richard Henry Lee declared that the Declaration itself was “copied from Locke’s Treatise on Government.” 5 Yet so heavily did Locke draw from the Bible in developing his political theories that in his first treatise on government, he invoked the Bible in one thousand three hundred and forty nine references; in his second treatise, he cited it one hundred and fifty seven times.”

Thomas Jefferson, from The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 462, in a letter to James Madison on August 30, 1823.

.
Disclaimer : . . . I have NOT personally read The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. I, “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”.

“I am equally far from believing that Mr. Locke was a friend to infidelity [a disbelief in the Bible and in Christianity 9]. . . . The high reputation which he deservedly acquired for his enlightened attachment to the mild and tolerating doctrines of Christianity secured to him the esteem and confidence of those who were its friends. The same high and deserved reputation inspired others of very different views and characters . . . to diffuse a fascinating kind of lustre over their own tenets of a dark and sable hue. The consequence has been that the writings of Mr. Locke, one of the most able, most sincere, and most amiable assertors of Christianity and true philosophy, have been perverted to purposes which he would have deprecated and prevented [disapproved and opposed] had he discovered or foreseen them.”

James Wilson, from The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. I, pp. 67-68, “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation.”

.
This was in response to “accusations” (it wasn’t really a crime) that John Locke was a secular writer.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Pablo Honey on March 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Pablo Honey please come to Floreeda.

Buttercup on March 21, 2014 at 3:01 PM

ND30 is probably the most unhinged poster on HotAir – stop being so angry and insulting all the time; we probably agree on lots of issues but your rabid posts make me weary of associating with you, and on top of that, do you really expect to convert anyone with such hateful rhetoric?

Federati on March 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM

The shame about his hatefulness is that he sometimes asks good questions, but who wants to interact with such a hateful person?

thuja on March 21, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Listening to the Pope about sex is like listening to a Vegen instructing us how to prepare the perfect steak.

Pablo Honey on March 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM

.
That’s not necessarily an invalid point.
.
Try the book “The Act Of Marriage: The Beauty of Sexual Love” by Tim & Beverly LaHaye
.
.
.
But be very careful … they’re both evangelical Christians, and you know what those people are like.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Pablo Honey please come to Floreeda.

Buttercup on March 21, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Washing myself, keeping myself clean.

Pablo Honey on March 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM

Doctors don’t know much about your hormonal interplay. They don’t know why some ovaries don’t release eggs. They don’t know why miscarriages occur in many instances. They just don’t know. Women’s health investigation and testing just stopped by many in the medical community because “you can just take the pill” to cover problems up.
cptacek on March 20, 2014 at 8:34 PM

On one level… Sadly true. On another, I don’t have the money to push for new developments, and neither does my wife, so… She can take the pill and have a fairly good quality of life (there are other issues, too…), or she can refuse it and suffer migraines that can’t be beaten down with anything. And then I have to suffer with her. (Guys know what I’m saying!) Sort of like Vioxx, maybe it cuts 5 years off your life, but it gives you a much better life for the couple of decades (or longer) that you take it.

Asurea on March 20, 2014 at 9:39 PM

I know what you’re saying. I’ve been there.

As much as modern medicine has advanced, it still deals poorly with hormonal changes. Birth control pills get prescribed sometimes for their hormonal regulation aspects. I know my wife was prescribed them for exactly that reason. This is unfortunately prescribing medication for its side effects rather than its primary purpose, but I think it’s fairly commonplace.

But that’s still not a reason to make insurance companies cover birth control pills. I don’t believe we ever had a problem with insurance companies refusing to cover birth control pills prescribed for health reasons rather than actual birth control, though we may have had to get a doctor to certify the reason to the insurance company first.

And I also remember that we had to change the prescription one time because she started getting headaches, which could have led to a more serious condition.

So this is certainly not an argument for Obamacare forcing insurance companies to provide birth control pills for everyone. If you need them for medical reasons rather than birth control, insurance will usually cover it.

It also brings up the excellent point that birth control pills should always be taken under a doctor’s supervision, no matter why you’re taking them. If Planned Parenthood wants to hand out free condoms, that’s one thing, but any form of medicine can have adverse side effects, and should be prescribed under a doctor’s care.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 21, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Any person who relentlessly toils in the support of murder and torture of real, living people–not fetuses–is objectively evil.

thuja on March 21, 2014 at 1:22 PM

That sentence made the whole rest of your post null and void. It also tells me everything there is to know about you.

rottenrobbie on March 21, 2014 at 3:21 PM

ND30 is probably the most unhinged poster on HotAir – stop being so angry and insulting all the time; we probably agree on lots of issues but your rabid posts make me weary of associating with you, and on top of that, do you really expect to convert anyone with such hateful rhetoric?

Federati on March 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM

I really don’t care what a fascist neurotic who thinks kids should be suspended from school for pretend finger-guns thinks.

Especially when said neurotic masturbates itself to the Obama Party calling Republicans Nazis and racists non-stop.

As far as converting you, conversion only works on the rational, and all supporters of Obama like yourself are not rational human beings. You are stupid children who think your bratty tantrums should be tolerated by adults.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 3:21 PM

That sentence made the whole rest of your post null and void. It also tells me everything there is to know about you.

rottenrobbie on March 21, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Add the juxtaposition of this:

While killing off enough other species to be qualify what we are doing as an ecocide is probably not in the human race’s long interest, shouldn’t we value all the life on this planet even if it isn’t self-interested?

thuja on March 21, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Or, phrased differently, thuja believes that we need to “value life” by killing human babies.

I personally think that, since thuja believes humans are a cancer on the earth and should be eradicated, that thuja should put its money where its mouth is and eradicate itself.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Contraception will never be banned.

Moesart on March 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM

.
Who … (besides Catholicism) … is trying to achieve the abolition of ‘contraception’?
.

Abortion will never be banned.

Moesart on March 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM

.
That’s where we differ … or … “I disagree.”
.

That’s the only reason these kinds of columns get posted. To drop that carrot in front of you.

Moesart on March 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM

.
Hmmmmm . . . . . carrots ………… oops, what I meant to say is these kind of threads bring the most comments and viewers; hence “ad revenue”.
.

If only we could individually choose as taxpayers where our tax dollars go. That’s a real fantasy. I have my own list. So do you.

Moesart on March 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM

.
Get government ALL TOGETHER OUT of the business of providing human/social services, and the multiple numerous corporate AND NON-PROFIT subsidies.
.
That’s … no … “fantasy.”

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Listening to the Pope about sex is like listening to a Vegen instructing us how to prepare the perfect steak. Pablo Honey on March 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Or like you pontificating on pretty much anything.

The pope has a transcendent divine standard and thousands of years of accumulated wisdom behind him when he speaks for the RCC. When you speak for your side you make it up as you go along.

Akzed on March 21, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Locke found that the fundamental basis for our rights are discoverable solely by reason and so do I.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 3:09 PM

So, if your line of logic and reason states that it is acceptable to take justice into your own hands, even to the extent of committing an act of cold-blooded murder, does this mean you have the right to do so?

Human beings have the potential for both good and evil. How is the potential for evil in human behaviors addressed under Locke’s Natural Law argument?

lineholder on March 21, 2014 at 3:38 PM

The pope has a transcendent divine standard

Yeah, who doesn’t?

and thousands of years of accumulated wisdom behind him when he speaks for the RCC.

Akzed on March 21, 2014 at 3:30 PM

’cause those goat herders were the sh-t when it comes to family planning.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 3:40 PM

lineholder on March 21, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Go read Locke. School is out.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 3:48 PM

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 3:48 PM

No answer? Don’t even want to try?

I’m genuinely curious. Was Locke a member of the “human beings are innately good” camp of theorists?

lineholder on March 21, 2014 at 3:54 PM

As far as converting you, conversion only works on the rational, and all supporters of Obama like yourself are not rational human beings. You are stupid children who think your bratty tantrums should be tolerated by adults.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 3:21 PM

–You insult all Texans by having Dallas in your name.

jim56 on March 21, 2014 at 3:55 PM

lineholder on March 21, 2014 at 3:54 PM

I told you where to find your answers. Are you too lazy or do you just want to make a nuisance of yourself?

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 3:56 PM

I am told living your life greatly increases your chances at getting cancer.

John the Libertarian on March 21, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Listening to the Pope about sex is like listening to a Vegen instructing us how to prepare the perfect steak.
 
Pablo Honey on March 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM

 
Ha. Or Obama telling us his plans to increase employment.

rogerb on March 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Medicine is used to treat an illness and medicine is also a poison. The goal is for the medicine to treat an illness and with the side effects from the medicine being less harmful than the disease. For example, I take a cocktail of medicine to reduce my severe high blood pressure and the net result for me is a longer life, but I do have some pretty serious side effects to deal with. If a healthy person took my medications that person’s life span would be shortened. I know….I know…..I get the Captain Obvious Award for that statement.

Contraception is usually not prescribed to treat an illness, but to stop pregnancy; thus the medical side effects will, most likely, have a net negative impact on the user. I see nothing wrong with pointing out the positive and negative side effects of all medications and let the user beware.

Also, I wear the Captain Obvious Award with pride.

HonestLib on March 21, 2014 at 9:23 AM

All medicines have side effects. One of the bigger concerns with the promotion of contraception by the government is the tendency to gloss over negative side effects in the push for the impossible dream of a world where sex never has negative consequences. Or, perhaps, to try to paint everyone who warns of the dangers of contraceptives as “anti-woman.”

But pointing out the over-use of contraceptives and their attendant side effects is still not the same thing as calling for the banning of contraceptives.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Or like you pontificating on pretty much anything.

The pope has a transcendent divine standard and thousands of years of accumulated wisdom behind him when he speaks for the RCC. When you speak for your side you make it up as you go along.

Akzed on March 21, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Is this the same thousands of years of wisdom that they used to protect sexual predators and cover up the rape of children?

Is that the divine standard you speak of?

Pablo Honey on March 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Listening to the Pope about sex is like listening to a Vegen instructing us how to prepare the perfect steak.

Pablo Honey on March 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM

To quote Father Guido Sarducci “You no playa da game, you no maka da rules!”

Mordaukar on March 21, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Responsible people use birth control.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Irresponsible people use birth control.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 21, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Irresponsible people use birth control.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 21, 2014 at 3:59 PM

–Really? Care to explain?

jim56 on March 21, 2014 at 4:02 PM

jim56 on March 21, 2014 at 4:02 PM

From what I’ve gathered so far, the answer is because gawd wants men to have blue balls.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 4:05 PM

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 3:56 PM

That’s okay. I’m familiar with some of Locke’s works, but not all of them.

IMO, Relying entirely on human logic fails at the point where the human heart and/or mind become corrupted with things of evil. So, a standard of morals has to be implied in Natural Law for Locke’s premise to have any value. Without the moral and ethical boundaries, lawlessness and anarchy would exist.

lineholder on March 21, 2014 at 4:06 PM

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 2:58 PM

I don’t give a rip if he were a sword-wielding Muslim. His philosophy is secular and an appropriate basis for my own rationale as well as Jefferson’s.

John Locke (1632–1704) is among the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the Two Treatises of Government, he defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society.

Natural law is also distinct from divine law in that the latter, in the Christian tradition, normally referred to those laws that God had directly revealed through prophets and other inspired writers. Natural law can be discovered by reason alone and applies to all people, while divine law can be discovered only through God’s special revelation and applies only to those to whom it is revealed and who God specifically indicates are to be bound.

More recent natural law commenters have taken to corrupting Locke’s meaning of the term, so please spare me that rabbit hole. Locke found that the fundamental basis for our rights are discoverable solely by reason and so do I.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 3:09 PM

.
I had this debate before (long time ago, I don’t believe it was with you), and I stated then, that the Founding Fathers (I would include John Locke in this group) did NOT consider what they called “Natural Law” to be something different/separated/apart from God. But the writer of that piece you linked to, as well as yourself (and many others) are trying to claim it is.

That whole argument is pure ‘atheist dodge’.

Without recognition of God, there … is … no … liberty.

There is only an abstract “mental picture” of what you think “liberty” is supposed to be.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 4:09 PM

lineholder on March 21, 2014 at 4:06 PM

Locke mostly wrote about the nature of rights and the justification for government authority. He doesn’t have a whole lot to say about what you want to talk about.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 4:09 PM

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 4:09 PM

And I say that you are full of it. Lockes provides a basis that is completely discernible by reason.

There is a reason I don’t question you about your philosophy. That is because I find magic and fantasy to be as uninteresting as it is non-instructive. Repetition of gawdidit does nothing for me.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 4:12 PM

http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke

He doesn’t really say what you think he says either. Heal thyself.

Murphy9 on March 21, 2014 at 4:14 PM

As far as converting you, conversion only works on the rational, and all supporters of Obama like yourself are not rational human beings. You are stupid children who think your bratty tantrums should be tolerated by adults.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 3:21 PM

–You insult all Texans by having Dallas in your name.

jim56 on March 21, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Or so says one of the slobbering Obama/Wendy Davis acolytes who calls all Texans stupid and uneducated.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Murphy9 on March 21, 2014 at 4:14 PM

This is the deepest controversy in Locke interpretation today, a controversy that is sometimes acrimonious.

The fact is that I don’t give a rip either way (although I will stand by my understanding of Locke). That is because I am able to construct an entirely secular reading of Locke that provides a solid rationale for rights and government, irrespective of Locke’s true intent.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 4:09 PM

I see. Thanks for responding,

I find the correlation between moral and ethical influence in society and the behaviors of the individuals living in that society to be an interesting topic. And I see human character development as being one of the most fascinating subjects known to mankind. That’s just me.

lineholder on March 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM

puff puff pass.

Murphy9 on March 21, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Is this the same thousands of years of wisdom that they used to protect sexual predators and cover up the rape of children?

Is that the divine standard you speak of?

Pablo Honey on March 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Since when have you and your fellow liberals opposed the sexual predation of children, Pablo?

NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay
Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice…..

ILGA’s current positions on man/boy love and pedophilia are
explicit:

– In 1985, ILGA adopted a position on “Age of Consent/Paedophilia/Children’s Rights” that urged member organizations to “lobby their governments to abolish the age of consent law” so long as there is “adequate protection for youth from being sexually abused without the age of consent law.”

– In 1986, ILGA adopted a position that says the group “supports
the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination.”

– In 1988, ILGA declared “this conference recognizes that existing
same-sex age-of-consent laws often operate to oppress and not to
protect; that in many countries, existing laws on sexual coercion
and rules of evidence also often operate to oppress and not to protect; that therefore member organizations are urged to consider
how best children, adolescents, and people of all ages can be
empowered and supported against both sexual coercion and sexual oppression and to work towards that end.”

– In 1990, ILGA “calls on all members to treat all sexual minorities with respect and to engage in constructive dialogue
with them. In another position adopted that year, ILGA declared
that it “supports the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality.”

Besides, the Obama Party endorses and supports Hollywood liberals like Roman Polanski and Woody Allen who rape and sexually molest children. Why are you suddenly complaining? You LIKE child rape.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Irresponsible people use birth control.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 21, 2014 at 3:59 PM

–Really? Care to explain?

jim56 on March 21, 2014 at 4:02 PM

I’m sorry. I thought we were playing the game of making obviously true statements that completely miss the point.

Responsible people use birth control.
Yes, they do.

Irresponsible people use birth control. Yes, they do.

I think MJBrutus was trying to imply that the use of birth control is inherently ‘responsible’ by suggesting that it’s used by responsible people.

But it’s pretty obviously also used by ‘irresponsible’ people, as well. Taking a single precaution does not really transform irresponsible behavior into virtue.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 21, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Or so says one of the slobbering Obama/Wendy Davis acolytes who calls all Texans stupid and uneducated.

northdallasthirty on March 21, 2014 at 4:17 PM

–Really? Where did I say that all Texans were stupid and uneducated? I must be having a brain freeze.

jim56 on March 21, 2014 at 4:28 PM

But it’s pretty obviously also used by ‘irresponsible’ people, as well. Taking a single precaution does not really transform irresponsible behavior into virtue.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 21, 2014 at 4:22 PM

–I get it now. I thought you were saying it was irresponsible to use birth control. My bad.

jim56 on March 21, 2014 at 4:28 PM

I can’t believe Mercer beat Duke – but I am thrilled.

antisense on March 21, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Mercer won? Holy cow.

jim56 on March 21, 2014 at 4:35 PM

There will be much use of contraception I am afraid.

One play still stuck in my mind is Mercer grabbing the ball after a Duke free-throw, and the Mercer player throwing it across the entire court to a teammate who dunked it.

antisense on March 21, 2014 at 4:38 PM

Murphy9 on March 21, 2014 at 4:14 PM

.
The fact is that I don’t give a rip either way (although I will stand by my understanding of Locke). That is because I am able to construct an entirely secular reading of Locke that provides a solid rationale for rights and government, irrespective of Locke’s true intent.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM

.
Barbra Streisand” ….. you stand by your DEFIANT rejection of “recognizing God” … period.

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Responsible people use birth control. Yes, they do.

Irresponsible people use birth control. Yes, they do.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 21, 2014 at 4:22 PM

You’re right, and the same is true about people who choose not to use artificial birth control. Some of them are responsible; some are not.

bmmg39 on March 21, 2014 at 4:41 PM

There will be much use of contraception I am afraid.

antisense on March 21, 2014 at 4:38 PM

Perhaps you can find consolation in the number of abortions that will not occur as a result :-)

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 4:42 PM

listens2glenn on March 21, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Thats’ right. I reject magic as an explanation for anything.

MJBrutus on March 21, 2014 at 4:54 PM

Dr. Miriam Grossman has a set of invaluable blog posts.

A Brief History of Sex Ed: How We Reached Today’s Madness – Part I

…Modern sex ed began in the sixties. It was based on Alfred Kinsey’s model of human sexuality. Thanks to the brilliant and courageous work of Dr Judith Reisman, we now know that Kinsey was both a fraud, and a deeply disturbed individual.

For Kinsey, it was anything goes when it came to sexuality, and I mean anything. He believed, for example, that pedophiles were misunderstood, and their punishments unjust.

“Sexuality is not an appetite to be curbed”, Kinsey insisted. He taught that, and he lived it.

His official biography documents the beliefs on which he based his work, and his personal life: The “human animal” is pansexual. Traditional morality is destructive. Sexuality is not an appetite to be curbed.

When I say that Kinsey was a deeply disturbed individual, it fails to capture the level of his psychopathology.

I’ve been a psychiatrist for thirty years, and trust me, I’ve met some very strange people. I am not easily shocked.

But when I began to read Kinsey’s official biography…What can I tell you? He was – please excuse the technical jargon – a real mental case.

Kinsey was afflicted at his core. He was a depraved human being, and his emotional illness expressed itself through his sexuality. He was consumed by a grotesque, debilitating, obsession with a wide range of abnormal behaviors – I’ll spare you the details, but I doubt very much that in all the 62 years of Kinsey’s miserable life he knew even one day of what we in this room would consider healthy sexuality.

INC on March 20, 2014 at 9:25 PM

BTW, thanks for posting this link. The whole sexual revolution was based on such false ‘science’ from the Kinsey reports and other sources. There are a lot of people who are unaware of just how ‘science’ was used to promote an agenda based on false information.

It’s also a commonplace in discussion of SSM and homosexuality. Many, many people changed their opinions about whether homosexuality was immoral or unhealthy based on claims that science had shown homosexuality was inborn. Quite sensibly, they didn’t want to disapprove of people or their behavior if they were ‘born that way.’

Unfortunately, those claims were not scientifically valid. But the belief that homosexuality is inborn is still predominant in our culture.

One of the phenomena of our modern culture is the attempt to change human behavior by the manipulation of science, precisely because of the reputation for credibility enjoyed by science. Global warming is probably one of the more egregious examples recently.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 21, 2014 at 4:56 PM

2m
Judge strikes down Michigan’s ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional – @freep
see original on twitter.com

Murphy9 on March 21, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7