Georgetown co-ed: Please pay for us to have sex … We’re going broke buying birth control - Page 29

Suudy · #**421** Mar 3, '12, 8:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Havard

And Georgetown does offer the pill for medicinal purposes.

The only reason there's a "bureaucratic barrier" is because the school needs to be able to verify the the medicinal purpose to satisfy conscience concerns.

She could have offered suggestions to speed up the process while also maintaining its purpose and integrity. I didn't hear any suggestions.

I think she, and those in support of the HHS mandate, don't think there are any conscience concerns. She didn't offer any suggestions because she thinks the "process" is unfair and needs to be removed. The only acceptable solution for her is that there be no process.

Bubba Switzler · #**422** Mar 3, '12, 8:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suudy

The only acceptable solution for her is that there be no process.

Which is entirely reasonable if:

A) Free health care is a human right, and

B) Contraception (for any purpose) is health care.

stevegravy · #**423** Mar 3, '12, 8:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

Rush may have gone a bit overboard but his mockery blew this script apart. He legitimized the "hell, no!" response. This, and not the supposed character assignation of Fluke, is what has Democrats so upset.

Yes, her testimony reeks but it is a small part of a much larger reeking agenda and modus operandi.

Because of the outrage I forced myself to listen to Rush and it was hilarious. Especially the part where he was commenting how proud the parents have to be. But I find most of American political arguments unable to rise above this caliber.

Bubba Switzler · #**424** Mar 3, '12, 8:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevegravy

Because of the outrage I forced myself to listen to Rush and it was hilarious. Especially the part where he was commenting how proud the parents have to be. But I find most of American political arguments unable to rise above this caliber.

Yeah, in a perfect world, instead of a Georgetown coed weeping crocodile tears for lack of access to free contraceptives and Rush mocking her testimony, we would have a formal debate on the subject with each side presenting its best arguments. But in the real world, humor is an effective device for disarming such phony crises.

Havard · #**425** Mar 3, '12, 8:34 am

I know it's a minor point, but was anyone else bewlildered at Ms. Fluke's inability to correctly pronounce the word "Jesuit" correctly? She's in her second semester of her last year at Georgetown Law...

It can be pronounced Jezh-oo-it or Jez-oo-it, but not Je-soo-it..

sedonaman · #**426** Mar 3, '12, 8:34 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevegravy

... But I find most of American political arguments unable to rise above this caliber.

And there is a good reason for that. Here is a reminder:

Pathological Politics

“…Because voters are rationally ignorant (the costs of gaining particular kinds of information are greater than the benefits since one vote is essentially meaningless), politicians must employ a language designed to evoke emotion – enough emotion to motivate the right people to turn out and vote. Thus, politicians rarely speak with precise meanings, marginal calculations, or logical reasoning; instead they manipulate effect, raw emotions, group identifications, and even hatred, envy, and threats."

So if one side evokes emotion, and the other side counters with facts and logical arguments, which side is going to win?

stevegravy · #**427** Mar 3, '12, 9:09 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedonaman

And there is a good reason for that. Here is a reminder:

Pathological Politics

“…Because voters are rationally ignorant (the costs of gaining particular kinds of information are greater than the benefits since one vote is essentially meaningless), politicians must employ a language designed to evoke emotion – enough emotion to motivate the right people to turn out and vote. Thus, politicians rarely speak with precise meanings, marginal calculations, or logical reasoning; instead they manipulate effect, raw emotions, group identifications, and even hatred, envy, and threats."

So if one side evokes emotion, and the other side counters with facts and logical arguments, which side is going to win?

That sums it up well.

Scott_Lafrance · #**428** Mar 3, '12, 9:54 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luna Lovecraft

There are many here who prefer their attitudes not be influenced by actual information. They prefer their world views and opinions filtered through Rush.

Luna

I came to the same conclussion, and I haven't listened to what "Rush" has said in over 3 years.

maximus · #**429** Mar 3, '12, 11:49 am

What is the pastoral response of a Catholic institution in this situation. If the Church teaches that adultery is a mortal sin and could lead the unrepentant to damnation what should be Georgetown's response other than defending her rights of conscience. If this young lady publicly supports a mandate that would lead members of a Catholic institution to be complicit in mortal sin, should they at least indicate that her comments do not reflect the institutions values and that they are not in accordance with Catholic Christian teaching.

God bless,

Ecoclimber · #**430** Mar 3, '12, 3:50 pm

Don't you think that this whole argument is moot if by a Guttmacher Institute study found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women in the U.S. have used a birth control method or contraceptives not sanctioned by the church? I mean if 98% of Catholic women agree with Fluke, what's the point?

seekerz · #**431** Mar 3, '12, 3:56 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecoclimber

Don't you think that this whole argument is moot if by a Guttmacher Institute study found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women in the U.S. have used a birth control method or contraceptives not sanctioned by the church? I mean if 98% of Catholic women agree with Fluke, what's the point?

Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Not with defeatism, slander or insults, but with good). Applies today as it did 2000 years ago and it's one solution that will fit any problem.

DeniseNY · #**432** Mar 3, '12, 4:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecoclimber

Don't you think that this whole argument is moot if by a Guttmacher Institute study found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women in the U.S. have used a birth control method or contraceptives not sanctioned by the church? I mean if 98% of Catholic women agree with Fluke, what's the point?

No, it's not moot. I at one time was among that 98% (if that's a correct percentage). It wasn't up to the Church to change for me; I had to change and accept the teachings of the Church.

**buffalo** · #**433** Mar 3, '12, 4:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecoclimber

Don't you think that this whole argument is moot if by a Guttmacher Institute study found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women in the U.S. have used a birth control method or contraceptives not sanctioned by the church? I mean if 98% of Catholic women agree with Fluke, what's the point?

I can't remember where I just saw it but they pulled this apart. I think it was 64% of women and it included all types including NFP.

L piperatus · #**434** Mar 3, '12, 4:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

A lot of people are frothing at the mouth mad at Rush Limbaugh for mocking Fluke but it's also worth considering how this testimony was intended to be viewed, and how it likely would have been reported.

Fluke presented herself, and was cast by Pelosi, as a meek little coed who just wanted to expose the "need" for mandated contraception (e.g. for the 40% of sexually active coeds at that Catholic institution).

This was all supposed to be a solemn, and routine, testimony. We were all supposed to shake our heads at this injustice and back the administration's HHS mandate.

Rush may have gone a bit overboard but his mockery blew this script apart. He legitimized the "hell, no!" response. This, and not the supposed character assignation of Fluke, is what has Democrats so upset.

Yes, her testimony reeks but it is a small part of a much larger reeking agenda and modus operandi.

Rush did a great service to the public debate. Sandra Fluke's testimony needed to be exposed for its hypocrisy and Rush exposed it.

There's no way that 40% of coeds suffer from polycystic ovary syndrome and endometriosis. So, Fluke, who is not a doctor and not a health insurance professional, went up there and gave a very misleading unbalanced testimony that concentrated almost exclusively on legitimate medical applications but conveniently glossed over the really outrageous part: she wants sexually active women, including unmarried fornicators, to have the expenses of their sinful behaviors covered and enabled on other people's dime.

Somebody needed to expose Sandra Fluke's hypocrisy and Rush Limbaugh did it. Bravo Rush!

L piperatus · #**435** Mar 3, '12, 4:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximus

What is the pastoral response of a Catholic institution in this situation. If the Church teaches that adultery is a mortal sin and could lead the unrepentant to damnation what should be Georgetown's response other than defending her rights of conscience. If this young lady publicly supports a mandate that would lead members of a Catholic institution to be complicit in mortal sin, should they at least indicate that her comments do not reflect the institutions values and that they are not in accordance with Catholic Christian teaching.

God bless,

I think we should adopt an Honor Code just like the Mormon BYU has. You want to be a student at a Catholic university - pledge and sign that you will abide by the Honor Code. And that Honor Code should contain an explicit pledge not to fornicate and not to use contraception. Then, as soon as someone like Sandra Fluke starts agitating against the Honor Code, she should simply and unceremoniously be expelled from the university.