excel_excel Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 His stance is that "Free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions," and because of that is morally unacceptable. So prenatal testing and amniocentesis which helps identify a wide range of genetic problems in the fetus, and help parents to know and prepare and help treat their babies before they are born, shouldn't be supported because.....some couples choose to use abortion after finding out their child will lead a life of suffering? How insane is that? Not to mention that your punishing the couples who don't want to abort but wouldn't be able to find out if their baby is going to be sick or be unable to prepare for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 His stance is that "Free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions," and because of that is morally unacceptable. So prenatal testing and amniocentesis which helps identify a wide range of genetic problems in the fetus, and help parents to know and prepare and help treat their babies before they are born, shouldn't be supported because.....some couples choose to use abortion after finding out their child will lead a life of suffering? How insane is that? Not to mention that your punishing the couples who don't want to abort but wouldn't be able to find out if their baby is going to be sick or be unable to prepare for it. What do you get when you mix Rick Santorum and logic? It's a trick question, they're incompatible. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 The whole article hinges on this statement "If Rick Santorum had his way, I wouldn’t have been able to get that test, and she most likely would have died. Because according to him, tests that give parents vital information about the health of their unborn children are morally wrong." What is the source of that? http://firstread.msn...-more-abortions Santorum says that the only reason to get prenatal testing is to get an abortion, and he thinks abortion is morally wrong, therefore he things prenatal testing is morally wrong. The article you linked to says that the Health Care Bill put in a clause for free testing in order to encourage abortions. That's totally different from "the only reason to get prenatal testing is to get an abortion". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Hmmm.... http://lifehacker.com/5886571/brainwashing-techniques-you-encounter-every-day-and-how-to-avoid-them Repetition of ideas? Check Emotional manipulation? Check 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excel_excel Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 The whole article hinges on this statement "If Rick Santorum had his way, I wouldn’t have been able to get that test, and she most likely would have died. Because according to him, tests that give parents vital information about the health of their unborn children are morally wrong." What is the source of that? http://firstread.msn...-more-abortions Santorum says that the only reason to get prenatal testing is to get an abortion, and he thinks abortion is morally wrong, therefore he things prenatal testing is morally wrong. The article you linked to says that the Health Care Bill put in a clause for free testing in order to encourage abortions. That's totally different from "the only reason to get prenatal testing is to get an abortion". Did you even read the full article or just Rick Santorum's parts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) The article you linked to says that the Health Care Bill put in a clause for free testing in order to encourage abortions. That's totally different from "the only reason to get prenatal testing is to get an abortion". Quote: “One of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing in every insurance policy in America,” Santorum said during a campaign stop in Ohio Saturday. “Why? Because it saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.” Schieffer asked:”You sound like you’re saying the purpose of prenatal care is to cause people to have abortions…I think any number of people would say that’s not the purpose at all.” “The bottom line is that a lot of prenatal tests are done to identify deformities in utero and the customary procedure is to encourage abortion,” Santorum said. I'm also kind of irritated that a man as hateful as him would accuse our president of killing babies to save money. That's slander, as far as I'm concerned. Edited February 21, 2012 by SixTwoSixFour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 So those statements are still not the same as "If Rick Santorum had his way, I wouldn’t have been able to get that test". Where has Santorum said he's against all prenatal testing? He clearly never said that all testing is done for abortions. That's would be stupid and you guys know he didn't say that. Let me try and draw it out a little better. He thinks that offering free testing increases the number of abortions. Is that true? Any data on this? He thinks that the Obama administration put the bit about free testing in there because it would result in more abortions. Well that's contingent upon the first part and I suppose you can't prove why it's in the bill. Does the bill provide for more medical care after the testing is done? If the bill does not provide for more care I would think that this conclusion would be logical. Provide for me where Santorum has said he'd like to get rid of all prenatal testing. You can't because he hasn't said it nor will he say it. That whole Salon article is ridiculous and they should be ashamed for posting a "Santorum wants to kill your baby" article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204909104577235471075318762.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 SO what that's basically saying is that even by AMerican standards he's over-religious for a presidential candidate so should tone down the bible bashing until he gets into power and can wreak havoc on the lives of decent people that don't conform to his religious views. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 http://drudgereport.com/flash3s.htm Protestants are going to hell, too? Is there no one that isn't Rick Santorum that's not going to hell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 As long as he doesn't join us down there, I'm happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Oh, hold on, now the Girl Scouts are the root of all evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) This mosaic is built from pictures of gay porn. EDIT: Whoops, apparently straight porn. Still... Edited February 22, 2012 by DukeOfPwn spoilered it for those of sensitive nature. Also it's straight porn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 it makes it sound like they go house to house with cookies and coat hangers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57381369-503544/santorum-democrats-are-anti-science-not-me/ What a moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 You just HAD to say it was built from gay porn. Once you said that I started to noitce..... stuff. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 What do you get when you mix Rick Santorum and logic? Shitty logic that slides about from point to point? That Santorum mosaic is straight porn btw, and Duke thankfully chose a much smaller and thus less NSFW version of the image. (edit: Turns out it was re-made from the original. Anyway for those wanting bigger of both, check New Vegas) http://www.cbsnews.c...science-not-me/ What a moron. See my grandads a joiner, I'd never really make any claim that's passed on down through to me. I've never quite understood the sort of "Oh well I'm part Irish" kinda thing Americans have, where in fact they're american but their great-great-grandad was an Irish immigrant. I so agree he's stupid to dismiss climate change as a political thing. Which is always a bother, you go for the stuff that's politicly advantageous if you think like that. http://online.wsj.co...1075318762.html When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. For the most part, his position was treated as a nonissue. Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. What a different reaction he gets. That's because Obama doesn't have a history of homophobic statements. I actually knew the word "santorum" a couple years before I even knew the man now running for president. At first I heard his name on the news and thought "oh how unfortunate that his surname is the same as 'santorum'. Wonder if he knows". Then I found out about where the word came from. That's kinda how much his legacy in those matters stretch. Just to get everyone up to speed here is the statement that brought Santorums name to infamy: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. http://www.usatoday....m-excerpt_x.htm http://en.wikipedia....g_homosexuality Then on the other end of the spectrum: http://www.buzzfeed....he-gay-communit (Though one would probably note that while this is certainly clear and above Santorums LGBT viewpoints, it's still theoretically baby-steps to the main aim) The issue folks take with Santorum is that not only is he against same-sex marriage, but also against same-sex sex. Even going as so far as to compare it to paedophilia and bestiality. Which is where he's a bit silly because nearly all these arguments against same-sex stuff end up on that slippery slope. The main difference between same-sex marriage/intimacy, is that two guys can be consenting. They can say "I do". A child or a dog, cannot. So allowing gays to have sex or get married isn't suddenly going to lead on to "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." It's just stupid. BTW Yante did you read that brainwashing article or watch the clip. You keep mentioning it's trying to put you in an emotional state, but I'm feeling nothing from it, but then it did click; maybe you're feeling anger at it? (Whcih kinda links back to a previous video in another thread). Ever thought you're looking for something that isn't there? I mean, brainwashing? really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Well, not so much brain washing as cheap rhetorical tricks you'd see in any infomercial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 It's a section from a TV drama, not an advert Yes scripts use cheap tricks, they're fitting a lot of content into a concise format, not present a full essay. For example here we see the power of three's used to sell the idea that "Fez's are cool": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvWYw0CnuSI See I don't watch much TV mainly because I prefer games and cos it's a bit of a hassle tbh, but damn it'd drive me insane if I was looking for a message in everything I watched and trying to decide if I'm for this idea, or if it's liberal ideas instead. Actually back to that: What exactly is wrong with being liberal? You seem pretty against the idea, and there's a few in the US that are sickly against the idea, but I'd have thought "land of the free" n all that jazz that many folks would be pretty pro-liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 "Liberal media" is a term coined by Fox News and the GOP to try and discredit people who say bad things about them. It's an essentially meaningless term. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 "Liberal" is used almost interchangeably (but not quite) with "progressive." It's considered the opposite of "conservative", which generally means wanting to go back to some perceived lost ideals ("family", "hard work", whatever). Liberalism is also often associated with more support for government social programs and regulation, whereas conservatives tend to think the free market will take care of most problems we might encounter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) "Liberal" is used almost interchangeably (but not quite) with "progressive." It's considered the opposite of "conservative", which generally means wanting to go back to some perceived lost ideals ("family", "hard work", whatever). Liberalism is also often associated with more support for government social programs and regulation, whereas conservatives tend to think the free market will take care of most problems we might encounter. The terms Liberal and Conservative are so incredibly incorrect as is the line that is the political spectrum. If anything it should either be a 4 quadrant chart or some sort of circular model or even a three dimensional chart. It's really too hard to pin a person down on every major issue. Still, the Right tends to be the ones (in my observation) who believe that people should more or less be left to their own devices and government should have as little to do with the lives of the public as possible (outside of the obvious and necessary like police, roads, post office etc.) while the Left tends to believe that the answer to every problem can be solved by the government and that people are quite incapable of ever taking care of themselves and should not be allowed to have to take responsibility of their actions. Me, I'm on the Right, though more Libertarian than anything else. You want to go have unprotected sex with 50 different people? Have at it! I'm not paying for your AIDS or Hep treatments though, nor will I pay for your condoms. Edited February 22, 2012 by Battra92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TheMightyEthan Posted February 22, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 For example I never understood those who are socially liberal yet seem more than willing to accept big government to the point of it strangling the people just for their one issue. Without getting into your "strangling the people" comment ( ), allow me to explain: those of us who are doing well in our society have a moral obligation to assist those who aren't. Only widespread organizations like the government or the Catholic Church (examples, I know there are others) are capable of addressing the issue on a societal scale, and I prefer the government because unlike other organizations they can make it compulsory and they won't (or at least are less likely to) deny the aid to people because of unrelated moral objections (like refusing to let sexually active gays sleep in a church run homeless shelter). I also don't like more local solutions because then people in higher-wealth areas get more help than in lower-wealth areas. For instance education is one of the most effective ways to fight poverty, but the practice of paying for public schools with local property taxes means that schools in areas with low property values (poorer areas) get disproportionately less funding and thus a lower standard of education, and therefore it is much more difficult for the children in those systems to lift themselves out of it. I understand that government-funded schools are different than private charities, but it illustrates the problem of trying to address issues on a local level: rich areas get more help, poor areas less, so it ends up worsening economic disparity. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 "Liberal" is used almost interchangeably (but not quite) with "progressive." It's considered the opposite of "conservative", which generally means wanting to go back to some perceived lost ideals ("family", "hard work", whatever). Liberalism is also often associated with more support for government social programs and regulation, whereas conservatives tend to think the free market will take care of most problems we might encounter. So it's a tad like socialism = communism thing. See we have a Liberal Democrat + Conservative coalition gov't atm. And one thing Cameron, Tory leader, is pushing is family unit n all that. A conservative ideal as you've suggested. But he's also (currently) pro-gay rights as he sees them as strengthening the family unit. “So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.” @Battra: Aren't most political leaning charts a quadrant graph? i.e I should maybe do one of these actually, anyone got any good questionnaire sites? I didn't know about the funding issue with schools though, would explain a bit. Bit of a sucky system. Also surely conservatives are pretty pro-government control too? Can't really tell people what they're allowed or not allowed to do in the name of maintaining old fashioned values without government backing. It's the same for either side surely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Did we discuss Liz Trotta and her inflammatory remarks here? I am curious as to how one can be so skewed. There are so many things in what she said that made no sense including things like 'too much rape' as if there's an acceptable amount of rape. Questionnaire sites are hard but I do recommend reading the OKCupid Blog and their statistics. It does help make ones own qs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.