Thread: 100% Effective

I had to laugh when I heard this soundbite. My mind went back to when I was 16 or so and started going out with girls. My Mom told me either spend 25 cents at the drug store or give her an aspirin. Naturally, I thought aspirin birth control was some cool, old school thing I never heard about but then she threw in the punch line. Same as this guy. Naturally the talking head MSNBC Cosmo chick is aghast.
Foster Friess: In my day, women "used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

I think somebody wasted their youth when it was the time to learn things like the difference between efficient and effective.

Never said I actually used this method and I doubt my Mother did either but the idea being illustrated in both cases is if you're going to jump into the proverbial gene pool do so responsibly and protect yourself otherwise, keep your legs closed or don't unleash the trouser snake. It's called personal responsibility and this gentleman, like most of us who still believe in personal responsibility, is naturally discredited and dismissed as some kind of loon. Personal responsibility means people having the liberty to make their own choices and the obligation to live with the consequences. Sadly most of the sheeple have a built in aversion to personal responsibility. The mantras of my country are now 1. It's not my fault. 2. It's not fair. A once strong, free and independent people now prefer to let George Soros and Barack Obama take care of them. Any student of history can tell you how this is going to end but we don't teach history anymore outside discussions of the evil imperialist, capitalists, the inequities of capitalism and democracy and how everyone is a victim and the compassionate application of tyranny (uh...I mean government) will solve all the problems.

Unfortunately, there's a whole lot of people out there who are intent on making sure there's only one way to be "responsible" and deal with the consequences; the way that they've already determined to be right for everybody based on what some old white dude says some ancient book of dubious relevance or accuracy says should happen.

Kills me that some women's group mouthpiece wants him to apologize for saying that. What in the world is offensive about that?

The implication is that if only women would keep their legs together .... Us poor men just cannot seem to catch a break with all these legs wide open women out there. It is a very offensive suggestion to me, and one not worthy of a gentleman.

James.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Unfortunately, there's a whole lot of people out there who are intent on making sure there's only one way to be "responsible" and deal with the consequences; the way that they've already determined to be right for everybody based on what some old white dude says some ancient book of dubious relevance or accuracy says should happen.

Nice try but I'm not an evangelical and I've not made it a religious discussion. I'm simply someone who believes in a person's right to make their own decisions (good or bad) and assume responsiblity for the consequences. Ridiculously old fashioned I know but I think once the government starts making all the choices for us we're little more than farm animals queuing up a trough a couple times a day to wait for whatever scraps the Nanny State Tryrants have decided to throw us.

FWIW, it doesn't matter if you and I are firm believers in contraception or not. Devout Catholics have religious prohibition against contraception and the government has less than ZERO business running afoul of that. That's not up for argument or debate. When the Nanny state becomes the soul moral and spiritual compass then we're all in very big trouble. I bet if we were forcing ham sandwiches down the throats of Muslim school children, there would be a whole other tone coming out of the liberal left.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Devout Catholics have religious prohibition against contraception and the government has less than ZERO business running afoul of that.

All Catholics, not just the devout ones, fall under that prohibition, yet the vast majority of them simply chose to ignore it. And the Catholic organizations in NY state where I am and where that newly minted cardinal has been in charge for few years now, already provide contraception because state law requires them to do so.

Here's an idea how to not provide contraception if that's offending your religious beliefs - run your religious organization with volunteers instead of with employees. It's the Christian way after all, though only if by 'Christian' you mean the way Jesus proposed it.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

..I bet if we were forcing ham sandwiches down the throats of Muslim school children, there would be a whole other tone coming out of the liberal left.

Wrong, the state approved bad school nutritionist, afterall C='s degree, would replace the ham sandwiches with deep fried chicken nuggets. Oh wait, wrong thread. Ooops.

To OldGi's detractors, the assertions of hypocracy are irrelevant to GI's assertions about freedom requiring responsibility. Because some break the law doesn't mean the law is invalid. It sounds like various sore points are being unleashed that don't have to do w/ his assertion. I have some empathy about the sore points, but with just a scan of the first page, it looks like a fast descent into confused discussion.