Wisconsin Votes For Abstinence - ???

[Stealth694]

Excellent point StrictMaster,
Santorum has really stuck his ding dong in the blender when he again stated he was so against Pornography. I pointed out how big a business it is ect, but remember this is a totally off the track Republican who is so self-rightous he forgets he has to serve as well as lead.
Thorne, I think the Abstinance idea (stupid) is more against being pro-active,,, birth control vs abortion or delivery.
Insurance companies are not really proactive as reactive. They are afraid if they support birth control they will have to deal with the fall out.

[StrictMasterD]

Excellent point StrictMaster,
Santorum has really stuck his ding dong in the blender when he again stated he was so against Pornography. I pointed out how big a business it is ect, but remember this is a totally off the track Republican who is so self-rightous he forgets he has to serve as well as lead.
Thorne, I think the Abstinance idea (stupid) is more against being pro-active,,, birth control vs abortion or delivery.
Insurance companies are not really proactive as reactive. They are afraid if they support birth control they will have to deal with the fall out.

Stealth694,
1 thing I failed ot mention and it a PROVEN stat that those who strognly oppsoe Pornography, those against ADult Movies, Book Stores etc, are generaly the 1st to cater to them when they open in a New Neighborhood, they tend to waitt in line til they open
I rembmer many. many years back I wentto my 1st POrn Film at a Theatre and while I waited in line i could not help but notice a number of Men wear trench coats waiting as well, and altho I did not carei f they wer flashers etc, the weather did warrant the coats, but what was interesting is 3 of the 5 men waiting had WHITE COLLARS around their necks and no they were NOT from White Dress Shirts
The Church needs to put more emphisis (like yhey ever wil) towadrs solving the issue of Child Melistation etc and worry FAR lesss about banning POrn or their Stand on Controception. The easiest way the y couldsolve this problem is to allow Priets to Marry but I do not wantto Highjack this thread over that issue which is a thread in and of itself
Santorium scares me like nobody else I ever heard speak
Let get back to basic,what wil he do for Jobs, The Ecomomy, The War, Gas Prices etc lets fight that befoe we start being intrusive into the lives of CONSENTING ADIULTS over 21
If someone does like what they see on TV the change the channel, there are no Laws that you must buy POrn etc You may agree withtheir lifestyle but as consenting adult they should be allowedi n our free society to do and watchwhat they want

[Thorne]

those who strognly oppsoe Pornography, those against ADult Movies, Book Stores etc, are generaly the 1st to cater to them when they open in a New Neighborhood

Statistics show that those states which have the highest proportion of religious citizens, which tend to vote Republican more often than not, are the highest consumers of pornography in the US. I believe that Utah ranks #1. So once again we see that the churches are trying to force people to follow rules which the people don't want.

1 other thing on Pornography, it has bee naround long enough

LOL! Pornography has been around since the first men started drawing women with mammoth breasts on the walls of caves! You can never eliminate pornography. All they can do is drive it underground, where it will still flourish, especially among the wealthy assholes who had it banned in the first place.

[js207]

... the first men started drawing women with mammoth breasts on the walls of caves!

Bestiality-porn? *grin*

Dumb move by Santorum, I agree: to a large extent the crackdown he apparently wants legally can't happen (that pesky freedom of speech stuff) and even if it did, it would be a terrible mess. Fortunately, it seems that's academic anyway: he's pretty much out of the race already, even if he hasn't made it official yet.

[thir]

The highly confusing thing about much of this seems to be that these people are not so much pro-life as anti-sex!

And in this, the religious Right and the radical (=fundamentalistic) feminists are once again - well - in bed together.
Or in other words, the absolute most LOUD people there are, as far as I can see, if only because they seem to get so much press time and space.

[Thorne]

The highly confusing thing about much of this seems to be that these people are not so much pro-life as anti-sex!

They are no more "pro-life" than someone who is pro-choice being "pro-death". These people are pro-BIRTH! Once the child is born they don't really give a damn about it. They don't want to provide medical care for babies, or nutritional aid, or anything else once they are born.

In essence, they are all anti-woman. If we were able to arrange things so that MEN would have to carry the children, and undergo the risks involved with pregnancy and birth, and deal with the problems of raising the children afterwards, things would change very quickly, I'm sure. That's why I like to imagine someone adding legislation to all these anti-woman laws they keep trying to pass which would make the fathers culpable, requiring DNA matching to determine paternity and making the fathers financially liable for both the child and the mother while she is unable to work.

But see, to these people, it isn't the man who couldn't keep his dick in his pants who's responsible. It's only the evil women who are cursed by god and have to suffer for it. Humbug!

[thir]

They are no more "pro-life" than someone who is pro-choice being "pro-death". These people are pro-BIRTH! Once the child is born they don't really give a damn about it. They don't want to provide medical care for babies, or nutritional aid, or anything else once they are born.

You have a point.
I am reminded of the outraged citizens in cases of alleged children abuse, where, once the child is taken away, no one cares one whit what becomes of them.

In essence, they are all anti-woman. If we were able to arrange things so that MEN would have to carry the children, and undergo the risks involved with pregnancy and birth, and deal with the problems of raising the children afterwards, things would change very quickly, I'm sure. That's why I like to imagine someone adding legislation to all these anti-woman laws they keep trying to pass which would make the fathers culpable, requiring DNA matching to determine paternity and making the fathers financially liable for both the child and the mother while she is unable to work.

But see, to these people, it isn't the man who couldn't keep his dick in his pants who's responsible. It's only the evil women who are cursed by god and have to suffer for it. Humbug!

Your points are good.

[StrictMasterD]

1 other thing on Pornography, it has bee naround long enough that Studios know what they can and can not do, they may come close to breaking the law but never realy have
And most not all but most Studios are owned and operated by Women or the Magority of their emplyess are, nobody forced these women into the business, the went into it for what ever the reason and if they are adults thats all that matter
You don't like PORN DON"T WATCH IT, DON'T BUY It don't cater to the Business but don't infringe on the rigts of conseting adults in the privacy of their own home to do so

[Thorne]

Thorne, I think the Abstinance idea (stupid) is more against being pro-active,,, birth control vs abortion or delivery.
Insurance companies are not really proactive as reactive. They are afraid if they support birth control they will have to deal with the fall out.

There's more to it than that. Just as there are sound medical reasons for abortions (fetus badly deformed, or deceased, or for the health of the mother, or for rape) there are sound medical reasons for women to use birth control pills (endometriosis, excessive cramping, etc.) The "fall out" comes from religious nuts who want to control women's reproductive rights, who want to prevent any kind of premarital sex, who want to move everyone in the country back to the 1st century when you could be stoned for adultery.

I would have no problems with the government, state or federal, paying for birth control pills or abortions for such medical reasons. I can see no valid reason for insurance companies NOT to include birth control pills in their medical coverage. Should self-insured religious groups be forced to provide such insurance? I see no valid, medical reason why they should not. If their employees are members of that church, then they won't make use of them anyway, right? And if they are not, the church has no right to impose its beliefs upon non-members.