Skip to main content

Santorum wants to ban contraception

Via Igor Volsky, here's frothing Ricky living up to his name (about 17 minutes in):



Obviously Santorum is stone crazy.  But stepping back, this is an unusually clear explanation of the conservative philosophy behind social policy. Santorum doesn't care that 99 percent of women have used contraceptives, or that banning them would cause a flood of unwanted children. He's not concerned about the actual effects at all. He's only concerned about the law glorifying the status of his favored tribe: heterosexual married couples who only have sex for child-bearing purposes. Conversely, we'd be expressing social disapproval of people Santorum doesn't like: homosexuals, unmarried couples, and dirty hippies who only have sex for fun.

Paul Waldman may have put it better, talking about Rick Perry and his stuttering response about the failure of abstinence:
Liberals may think that conservatives support abstinence education because they believe it will reduce teen pregnancy, when the truth is that stopping teen pregnancy is at best a minor consideration for conservatives. If there’s going to be any discussion of sex in school at all, they believe it ought to express the categorical moral position that sex is vile and dirty and sinful, until you do it with your spouse, at which point it becomes beautiful and godly (you’ll forgive a bit of caricature). The fact that abstinence-only education is far less effective at reducing teen pregnancy than comprehensive sex-ed isn’t something they’re pleased about, but it doesn’t change their conviction about the moral value that ought to be expressed.
Liberals, on the other hand, think sex education ought to have as its primary goal reducing teen pregnancy and keeping kids safe from STDs. And yes, they also believe that it ought to encourage a perspective on sex that leads to a healthy, well-adjusted sex life that isn’t built on 17th century puritanical notions of shame and fear. But they weigh the practical considerations more heavily than the moral considerations. 
UPDATE: Dadgum copyright. Tried to fix the embed, but it doesn't seem to be working. Here's another one from years back to tide you over:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Free will, part II

This post is dedicated to Mark Bedau , my philosophy professor at Reed, a great guy and a wonderful teacher, by far the least pretentious philosopher I've ever met. He is responsible for this post only insofar as he sparked my interest in the subject; its many shortcomings are mine alone. Who's ready for some unqualified philosophical rambling? I'm not going to do much more than summarize, as this is probably one of the five biggest problems in philosophy and the material quickly gets out of hand. Anyway—let's start with some terms, appropriately hefty philosophical ones. (I'm going to steal shamelessly from Wikipedia, as the free will article is very good.) Free will is "purported ability of agents to make choices free from constraints." Some call it the "ability to have done otherwise," but that definition runs into problems which I'll describe later. Determinism is the view that all events are caused by previous events, while indet...

On Refusing to Vote for Bloomberg

Billionaire Mike Bloomberg is attempting to buy the Democratic nomination. With something like $400 million in personal spending so far, that much is clear — and it appears to be working at least somewhat well, as he is nearing second place in national polls. I would guess that he will quickly into diminishing returns, but on the other hand spending on this level is totally unprecedented. At this burn rate he could easily spend more than the entire 2016 presidential election cost both parties before the primary is over. I published a piece today outlining why I would not vote for Bloomberg against Trump (I would vote for Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or Biden), even though I live in a swing state. This got a lot of "vote blue no matter who" people riled up . They scolded me and demanded that I pre-commit to voting for Bloomberg should he win the nomination. The argument as I understand it is to try to make it as likely as possible that whatever Democrat wins t...

RIP Stephanie Chance, Niger Peace Corps volunteer

Our Peace Corps family has been suffering some tragedies lately. Stephanie Chance, a volunteer in Niger, has died of what appears to be natural causes. My thoughts are with her friends and family. Below I'm posting a letter from Director Aaron Williams. I am deeply saddened to write that Municipal Development Volunteer Stephanie Chance, an admired member of the Peace Corps family in Niger, died on Thursday, October 7, 2010. Stephanie, 26 years old, was found in her home in Zinder, and, at this time her death appears to be from natural causes. Her sudden passing is mourned by the entire Peace Corps community, including her fellow training group members, who were recently sworn in together as Volunteers on September 23, 2010. Stephanie was a native of Phoenix, Arizona, and she had arrived in Niger for training in July 2010. She had just arrived at her site in Zinder and was busy getting to know the community to help local officials better coordinate local government servi...