I could never be a candidate for prez......

[musclehead]

in a recent debate the LEFT WING POLITICAL HACK asked the most insipid dumba$$ question ever about contraception. not even a real question it was a hypothetical.

I would look the dumba$$ right in the eye and say something like; "are you kidding? we have massive unemployment, millions under unemployed, millions that have dropped out from the game of looking. millions and millions on food stamps. we are  15 TRILLION in debt and the prez wants 1.2 trillion more. we have an economy stumbling and barely showing any growth and you want to talk about contraception? what are you a %$^&*(@  #$@!%^&* moron?"

when you cuss out the moderator your bid for the prez is done, no matter how much the crowd starts cheering.

[Pete]

LEFT WING POLITICAL HACK = You cannot fix stupid

[old2soon]

Whats another 1.3 trillion amongst the numb nuts that pass for politicians that are trying their level best to protect us?  Couple trillion here couple of trillion there-my brother reminded me of something the other night-when you're up to yer a$$ in alligators it hard to remember that your main objective is to drain the swamp.  Yuppers i was ramblin-somebody want to elect me to an office in D C?  Can't seem to do everything i need or want to do on my S S.  But the important thing here is i DO manage with the money i do get.  Not real sure here but i believe that puts me well ahead of at least 98.1% of the trolls presently in D C.

[BigAl]

When you find yourself in a hole,,STOP DIGGING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Duh

[Bob E.]

I'm not sure which debate, which moderator, or to which candidate the question was asked...let alone the exact question. But just to hazzard a guess, I'd bet the reason for the question has to do with the numerous "personhood" amendments being pushed throughout the country and the fact that every GOP candidate has either signed on to a pledge or is on record as saying they support such amendments.  What does this have to do with contraception?  Well, the personhood amendments, establishing that life begins immediately at conception (fertilization of egg), meaning that the most popular and most widely used form of contraception, THE PILL, as well as other forms such as IUD's and hormonal contraceptive implants, would be outlawed because they do not prevent fertilization of the egg but rather prevent it from attaching itself inside of the mother's uterus.

Furthermore, Rick Santorum has come out publicly saying he would crack down on contraception use because of his religious belief that contraception is "bad because it leads to people doing things of a sexual nature." (maybe not exact quote word for word but very close)

And finally, in a time of...as musclehead puts it...massive unemployment, millions under unemployed, millions that have dropped out from the game of looking. millions and millions on food stamps. we are  15 TRILLION in debt and the prez wants 1.2 trillion more. we have an economy stumbling and barely showing any growth...the current congress have introduced around 30 bills (maybe more by now) related to abortion since the GOP took control of the house rather than jobs bills.

While I agree with you that it is a ridiculous topic given what is going on in the country and around the world, it is the GOP and their actions/statements that have made this question relevent in today's debates.  That's the sad thing.

[Oss]

for a minute there I thought you were going to say because you inhaled....


 

[Serk]

I'm not sure which debate, which moderator, or to which candidate the question was asked...let alone the exact question. But just to hazzard a guess, I'd bet the reason for the question has to do with the numerous "personhood" amendments being pushed throughout the country and the fact that every GOP candidate has either signed on to a pledge or is on record as saying they support such amendments.  What does this have to do with contraception?  Well, the personhood amendments, establishing that life begins immediately at conception (fertilization of egg), meaning that the most popular and most widely used form of contraception, THE PILL, as well as other forms such as IUD's and hormonal contraceptive implants, would be outlawed because they do not prevent fertilization of the egg but rather prevent it from attaching itself inside of the mother's uterus.

Furthermore, Rick Santorum has come out publicly saying he would crack down on contraception use because of his religious belief that contraception is "bad because it leads to people doing things of a sexual nature." (maybe not exact quote word for word but very close)

And finally, in a time of...as musclehead puts it...massive unemployment, millions under unemployed, millions that have dropped out from the game of looking. millions and millions on food stamps. we are  15 TRILLION in debt and the prez wants 1.2 trillion more. we have an economy stumbling and barely showing any growth...the current congress have introduced around 30 bills (maybe more by now) related to abortion since the GOP took control of the house rather than jobs bills.

While I agree with you that it is a ridiculous topic given what is going on in the country and around the world, it is the GOP and their actions/statements that have made this question relevent in today's debates.  That's the sad thing.

I don't recall who it was asked of, but the context of the question was actually put as a states right question. Should a state be allowed to ban contraception, as I said, phrased in terms of should the federal government allow an individual state to do so or should such acts be prohibited by the federal government. It wasn't phrased around the personhood movement or any of the other abortion related issues.

[Bob E.]

I don't recall who it was asked of, but the context of the question was actually put as a states right question. Should a state be allowed to ban contraception, as I said, phrased in terms of should the federal government allow an individual state to do so or should such acts be prohibited by the federal government. It wasn't phrased around the personhood movement or any of the other abortion related issues.

I thought that might have been the debate I was thinking of...and it was Romney that answered the question, though I don't remember who asked it.  The personhood issue is the state's rights issue they were getting at.  It was recently voted down in Colorado and Mississippi.  And I believe they are trying to have it up for a vote in SC in the next election (another reason it was relevant).  The other point of the question was to demonstrate that some of these politicians are jumping on bandwagons supporting these sorts of issues...whithout actually knowing what they are supporting.  Most people think personhood is about preventing abortion and don't realize that it actually would restrict the use of many popular and mostly uncontroversial contraception methods.

[Big Rig]

Is it me and i am sure I will get flamed which is cool...

But the repubs want to do away with birth control when more often than not it will lead to more Democratic votes....just a thought...

maybe they should seriously look at what they are asking and maybe rethink their game.

[Willow]

  The other point of the question was to demonstrate that some of these politicians are jumping on bandwagons supporting these sorts of issues...whithout actually knowing what they are supporting.  Most people think personhood is about preventing abortion and don't realize that it actually would restrict the use of many popular and mostly uncontroversial contraception methods.

I was going to correct you on your previous post, but decided to not do so.  Since you repeated your error, though, I don't believe anyone I know of defines conception as occurring prior to implantation on the wall of the uterus.  I'm pretty sure UID's and traditional birth control pills prevent conception.

I don't know of any Republican candidates who are running on a platform of outlawing birth control.     

[WamegoRob]

I don't know of any Republican candidates who are running on a platform of outlawing birth control.

For what it's worth, while outlawing it may not be one of the tenets of his platform, Santorum has voiced his opinion on the subject.

[Bob E.]

  The other point of the question was to demonstrate that some of these politicians are jumping on bandwagons supporting these sorts of issues...whithout actually knowing what they are supporting.  Most people think personhood is about preventing abortion and don't realize that it actually would restrict the use of many popular and mostly uncontroversial contraception methods.

I was going to correct you on your previous post, but decided to not do so.  Since you repeated your error, though, I don't believe anyone I know of defines conception as occurring prior to implantation on the wall of the uterus.  I'm pretty sure UID's and traditional birth control pills prevent conception.

I don't know of any Republican candidates who are running on a platform of outlawing birth control.     

Willow, with all due respect, you just proved my point.  Like I said, many of the supporters of these ideas don't know fully what they are supporting.

from wikipedia:

A political movement in the United States seeks to define the beginning of human personhood as starting from the moment of fertilization, with the consequence that abortion, as well as forms of birth control that prevent implantation of the embryo, could become illegal.[19][20] Supporters of the movement also state that it would have effects on the practice of in-vitro fertilization.[21]

[Willow]

Willow, with all due respect, you just proved my point.  Like I said, many of the supporters of these ideas don't know fully what they are supporting.

from wikipedia:

A political movement in the United States seeks to define the beginning of human personhood as starting from the moment of fertilization, with the consequence that abortion, as well as forms of birth control that prevent implantation of the embryo, could become illegal.[19][20] Supporters of the movement also state that it would have effects on the practice of in-vitro fertilization.[21]

I found the quote within context in the Wikipedia article.  Although the article itself appears to be highly biased, they are correct that the personhood political movement uses the term fertilization rather than conception. 

I did notice from the site of Personhood USA the statement they showed signed by candidates, however, used the term conception.

I can see from where you've taken your point.  I think it's a stretch.

I see why the people pushing personhood chose to use the term fertilization but I believe it was horribly ill-advised and detracts from the intent of the vast majority of their supporters.

I firmly believe that most pro-life supporters, both candidates and voters, would define life as beginning at conception, but that leaves the uncomfortable loophole of "test tube" embryos.

I'll agree to stand corrected on the terminology used by the Personhood USA movement, but not the intent.

I still don't know of any candidates running on a platform of outlawing contraception.   

[G-Man]

  The other point of the question was to demonstrate that some of these politicians are jumping on bandwagons supporting these sorts of issues...whithout actually knowing what they are supporting.  Most people think personhood is about preventing abortion and don't realize that it actually would restrict the use of many popular and mostly uncontroversial contraception methods.

I was going to correct you on your previous post, but decided to not do so.  Since you repeated your error, though, I don't believe anyone I know of defines conception as occurring prior to implantation on the wall of the uterus.  I'm pretty sure UID's and traditional birth control pills prevent conception.

I don't know of any Republican candidates who are running on a platform of outlawing birth control.     

Conception:

1.  Syn: concept.
2. Act of forming a general idea or notion.
3. Act of conceiving; the implantation of the blastocyte in the endometrium.

[G-Man]

I firmly believe that most pro-life supporters, both candidates and voters, would define life as beginning at conception, .......

This is because most people don't know that there is a difference between fertilization and conception.  When I did my Obstetrics and pediatrics rotation, this was made evident to me.  Most people believe that conception means fertalization.

In the real world, the fertilized egg has undergone cell splitting and doubling before conception.  These cells are complex organisms that utilize and create energy and waste.  This, to me, is life.  Primitive and unsustainable on its own, but still life, with the ability to continue to develope into a person.  These are my beliefs on when life begins.  It has nothing to do with my feelings on abortion.

[Bob E.]

I can see from where you've taken your point.  I think it's a stretch.

I don't believe it is a stretch at all.  I believe it is intentional.  Pro Life Groups are trying to set a specific definition of personhood as a tactic in their attempts to overturn Roe-v-Wade.  If the fertilized egg is instantly a person as defined by law, then aborting that person would be a murder and therefore illegal.  This is why 3rd trimester abortions are now banned in all but the most dire of circumstances (like mother's life is in danger)...because in most cases the current definition of what is a person is when the fetus is a potentially viable human being that could survive outside of the womb.

G-Man is right in that most people don't know the difference between conception and fertilization.  And the pro-life groups are taking advantage of that fact in their propaganda.

[Willow]

  And the pro-life groups are taking advantage of that fact in their propaganda.

I believe we could accurately say that pro-abortion advocates are taking advantage of that fact in their propaganda.

As I already stated, the vast majority of pro-life supporters and pro-life groups have no intention of outlawing traditional birth control and I believe that straw man was the point on which you built your initial hysteria.

I acknowledge that you didn't think it was a stretch.  I don't think any of us honest ones think we are reaching when we're reaching.  We have different views and that gives us much different perspectives.  I'm okay with accepting that.     

[Valkahuna]

I don't recall who it was asked of, but the context of the question was actually put as a states right question. Should a state be allowed to ban contraception, as I said, phrased in terms of should the federal government allow an individual state to do so or should such acts be prohibited by the federal government. It wasn't phrased around the personhood movement or any of the other abortion related issues.

I thought that might have been the debate I was thinking of...and it was Romney that answered the question, though I don't remember who asked it.  The personhood issue is the state's rights issue they were getting at.  It was recently voted down in Colorado and Mississippi.  And I believe they are trying to have it up for a vote in SC in the next election (another reason it was relevant).  The other point of the question was to demonstrate that some of these politicians are jumping on bandwagons supporting these sorts of issues...whithout actually knowing what they are supporting.  Most people think personhood is about preventing abortion and don't realize that it actually would restrict the use of many popular and mostly uncontroversial contraception methods.

The other point of the question was to demonstrate that some of these politicians are jumping on bandwagons supporting these sorts of issues...whithout actually knowing what they are supporting.


Oh, you mean kinda sorta like the Dems did when the signed the Obama Care Bill?    

[Bob E.]

  And the pro-life groups are taking advantage of that fact in their propaganda.

I believe we could accurately say that pro-abortion advocates are taking advantage of that fact in their propaganda.

As I already stated, the vast majority of pro-life supporters and pro-life groups have no intention of outlawing traditional birth control and I believe that straw man was the point on which you built your initial hysteria.

I acknowledge that you didn't think it was a stretch.  I don't think any of us honest ones think we are reaching when we're reaching.  We have different views and that gives us much different perspectives.  I'm okay with accepting that.     

I think you are missing my point a bit.  I guess I can take some blame on that because I got sidetracked in trying to describe the controversy to you (after you stated that I was twice incorrect about it) rather than what I actually meant in my response to the original poster.  I'm not trying to build any hysteria and I never stated any personal views or took any position on abortion in general.  The only position I am taking is, as it relates to the original post of this thread, that the question regarding contraception posed by the "political hack" (as described by the OP) was a valid question for a couple of reasons.  

First, Rick Santorum had very recently said some rather eye-opening things specifically regarding his views on contraception and what he would do about it if he were to become president.

Second, the GOP has made the issue of abortion an important topic by their actions in the US House of Representatives as well as across the country in many states despite the many other (the OP might say more important) problems this country faces...which leads to the "personhood" topic.

Third, every GOP candidate has supported the idea of a "personhood" amendment as a state's rights issue if not a federal issue.  And I was trying to point out that there is contraversy regarding the definition of "personhood" being pushed in the amendments.  And that controversy is specifically related to the most popular method of contraception used today (among other things).

And finally, fourth, not everyone understands the difference between fertilization and contraception.  And the purpose of the question (as I took it) was to find out if the candidate, who by the way had taken a different position in the past, actually understood what it was that he was now endorsing and the possible ramifications of that.

And that is why I believe the question posed by the moderator (political hack??) was a valid question in that debate for these candidates.

[Bob E.]

Oh, you mean kinda sorta like the Dems did when the signed the Obama Care Bill?    

I'm not sure what you mean.  I think I know...but before I make the assumption, I'd rather you say it. 

[Valkahuna]

Oh, you mean kinda sorta like the Dems did when the signed the Obama Care Bill?    

I'm not sure what you mean.  I think I know...but before I make the assumption, I'd rather you say it. 

Just saying that this certainly isn't the first, nor the last time, that our esteemed politicians jump on, or support an issue strictly for their own gain, or their party's agenda, without knowing anything about the issue they are supporting. If that was your assumption, then you are correct.

[musclehead]

Oh, you mean kinda sorta like the Dems did when the signed the Obama Care Bill?    

I'm not sure what you mean.  I think I know...but before I make the assumption, I'd rather you say it. 

probably Nancy Pelosi saying "we have to pass the bill before you will know what's in it"
one of the most incredible things a speaker has ever said.

[Valkahuna]

Oh, you mean kinda sorta like the Dems did when the signed the Obama Care Bill?    

I'm not sure what you mean.  I think I know...but before I make the assumption, I'd rather you say it. 

probably Nancy Pelosi saying "we have to pass the bill before you will know what's in it"
one of the most incredible things a speaker has ever said.

What's worse is that she got away with it!

[Bob E.]

Yeah, that's the quote I thought you were referring to.  And as we all know, she was talking about the public finding out what was actually in the bill versus all of the lies the right-wing machine was saying was in the bill..."DEATH PANELS" anyone??  But we all know that's just not as catchy of a headline.

[Master Blaster]

Yeah, that's the quote I thought you were referring to.  And as we all know, she was talking about the public finding out what was actually in the bill versus all of the lies the right-wing machine was saying was in the bill..."DEATH PANELS" anyone??  But we all know that's just not as catchy of a headline.

I believe it was the Dems that ran ads showing the Repubs pushing seniors off the cliff.  Also I believe it is better to err in favor of life than the opposite.   Abortion is approching genocide in some areas.  Of course its not about life, but money.

[Bob E.]

I believe it was the Dems that ran ads showing the Repubs pushing seniors off the cliff.  Also I believe it is better to err in favor of life than the opposite.   Abortion is approching genocide in some areas.  Of course its not about life, but money.

Regarding the Seniors off a cliff ads, that was a completely different topic.  That was regarding Paul Ryan's plan to end Medicare that nearly every (if not every) GOP rep voted for.

Regarding abortion...again a completely different topic from my post...but I'd like to see some data regarding the "genocide" statement.  From wikipedia, Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."  I'm not saying it isn't true, but I hadn't heard of it.  I'd also like to know what you mean..."its not about life, but money."