Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reasonable women cannot remain silent as the secretary of state of the United States pretends that America under a President Santorum or Romney would be an oppressive society for women. Or as a New York Times columnist echoes her, insisting that good men protecting conscience rights are “cavemen,” and that “Republican men” are trying to “wrestle American women back into chastity belts” in an “insane bout of mass misogyny.” Or as Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, calls the U.S. Catholic bishops “violently anti-woman.”
This is miserable, insulting, desperate stuff. It’s just not right, and women of reason cannot let it stand.
I read the opinion piece. What tripe. Here is an example:
Quote:
This White House may defend your freedom to worship inside your church, but not to practice your faith if it collides with its radical agenda.
Who is stopping anyone from practicing there religion? If you don't believe in birth control, don't use them. If your religion believes that eating pigs is an abomination, don't eat them. There is nobody at the White House forcing anyone who doesn't want to, to eat pork or use birth control.
What is that "radical agenda?" The Constitution?
But the line is drawn when you think that your religious practices should be imposed upon others.
Santorum has made his meaning plain:
"Sex is supposed to be within marriage. It's supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal… but also procreative. That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…. This is special and it needs to be seen as special."
He also maintained that contraception is "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
Now he wants to impose his personal sense of morality about porn:
Quote:
If elected, the GOP presidential candidate writes in a position paper widely circulated this week, he would order his attorney general to “vigorously enforce” existing laws that “prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier.”
While I do see a planned erosion of woman's rights under Santorum I see no evidence of a war on men. There are no plans to restrict Viagra.
I read the opinion piece. What tripe. Here is an example:
Who is stopping anyone from practicing there religion? If you don't believe in birth control, don't use them. If your religion believes that eating pigs is an abomination, don't eat them. There is nobody at the White House forcing anyone who doesn't want to, to eat pork or use birth control.
What is that "radical agenda?" The Constitution?
But the line is drawn when you think that your religious practices should be imposed upon others.
Santorum has made his meaning plain:
"Sex is supposed to be within marriage. It's supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal… but also procreative. That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…. This is special and it needs to be seen as special."
He also maintained that contraception is "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
Now he wants to impose his personal sense of morality about porn:
While I do see a planned erosion of woman's rights under Santorum I see no evidence of a war on men. There are no plans to restrict Viagra.
Once again, we have false outrage from the Right.
It's the stereotyping exaggerations about all conservative men that is offensive. I am not a fan of Santorum at all but most conservative men don't fit what they are being accused of from the liberal left.
Here is the controversy surrounding employer mandated insurance coverage for contraceptives.
The Obama administration's decision was to require church-affiliated employers to cover birth control and was bound to cause an uproar among Roman Catholics and members of other faiths, no matter their beliefs on contraception.
It's the stereotyping exaggerations about all conservative men that is offensive. I am not a fan of Santorum at all but most conservative men don't fit what they are being accused of from the liberal left.
Who said that they were all the same? Certainly nobody I know.
I read the opinion piece. What tripe. Here is an example:
Who is stopping anyone from practicing there religion? If you don't believe in birth control, don't use them. If your religion believes that eating pigs is an abomination, don't eat them. There is nobody at the White House forcing anyone who doesn't want to, to eat pork or use birth control.
What is that "radical agenda?" The Constitution?
But the line is drawn when you think that your religious practices should be imposed upon others.
Santorum has made his meaning plain:
"Sex is supposed to be within marriage. It's supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal… but also procreative. That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…. This is special and it needs to be seen as special."
He also maintained that contraception is "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
Now he wants to impose his personal sense of morality about porn:
While I do see a planned erosion of woman's rights under Santorum I see no evidence of a war on men. There are no plans to restrict Viagra.
Once again, we have false outrage from the Right.
But Santorum also stated that he would not support legislation to ban contraception. The only legislation being proposed is that religious institutions be forced to cover contraceptives in health plans for employees. So in the context of this debate, it would appear that you consider that religious institutions who refuse to fund contraceptives are imposing their religious practice on others. Do I read you right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
