The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Yeah, especially if they actually pay taxes on the profit they're presently bragging about.

I think they paid $672 million in taxes in 2010.

I think the Catholic bishops are also trying to impose their requirements on CATHOLICS. Seems the Catholics who are most concerned about not using "artificial" contraception methods...are the ones who are not supposed to be *******, the clergy. The Catholics who do ****--seem to think it is just ducky.

wonder what the percentage of practicing Catholics use birth control?

That was such a disgusting joke Santorum is trying to pass off as just an old school joke.

Not really surprising that such a person is a huge backer of Santorum.

9 controversial Rick Santorum quotes

On birth control, Santorum out of step with nation

Santorum: Women in combat could compromise missions

Santorum: Women Are Capable Of ‘Flying Small Planes’

Corporate entities get to move losses forward and write them off in successive years. GMs years of losses mean they won't be paying taxes until those losses run their course in the tax code.

This is a serious question.... not rhetorical.... if my business, as a corporation .... a small S corporation obviously, lost 10,000 annually for a couple of years... then I could have written them off in the last two years of my "S" corporation and avoided .... legally....tax liabilities for the last two years I was still an S corp before becoming just a self employed individual again? And if that's so would it be possible for me to file something retroactively and benefit in some way? sorry to hijack the thread... but I had no idea of anything like this and it wold have saved me a bundle while I was sick and struggling to stay in business.

That is irrelevant in terms of the principle. Contraception is demeaning to women and the Church will never agree to it in principle. One doesn't embrace sin because we are all sinners. That's politics, not religion.

The studs in porn movies don't rely on artificial chemical or mechanical contrivances to protect the ladies. They do it themselves. And if you could put down all your ridiculous sex "education" you will find that ladies can protect themselves in a variety of ways all of which are natural and require no intervention by business interests.

This might help you a little bit:
http://www.toolkit.com/small_business_guide/sbg.aspx?nid=P07_3130

The first question is whether you took the loss on your personal income tax.

You don't know tax-loss carryforwards get wiped out in a Chapter 11 filing? Or don't you know GM filed for Chapter 11 in 2009? Either way give fair warning to recipients of your tax advice, unless of course Obama is bailing them out: that's how GM got $45bn tax loss carryforwards for up to 20 years.

Contraception is not demeaning to women and the "church" don't have to accept it. They just don't get to force their dogma onto to others who don't believe in what they believe whatever that belief may be.

According to most polls, the compromise Obama struck last week is pretty well acceptable to most people (even among Catholics) notwithstanding the Bishops and Popes and political opportunist objections to it. Unless we want to return to the days when nations enforced their religious beliefs through blood and oppression (the very thing those who came to the "new world" were escaping), I think it is safer to keep religious views and beliefs out of the government and politics.

Contraception is most certainly demeaning to women. And you needn't be a Catholic to know that. You just look at a sweet, innocent face in a lace bonnet and swoon away in paroxysms of love and there is no pharmacy, or surgery, you want to go to in order to facilitate the exercise of that love and the testing of it. I would argue that it isn't even sex if you do.

It's not particularly demeaning to men because men are like carrots, cheap and plentiful and easily cooked, as Professor Germaine Greer told us, and I can't argue about that. And you can't demean carrots can you?

Tell me who the Church has "forced" its natural law upon. It presents a general moral position to young people in the hope they will retain the bulk of it and knowing full well that in maturity they will make their own minds up about parts of it. The sex part being the one they can't actually control directly, as secularists might eventually need to do, and the part most likely to be resisted. The law takes care of most of it.

Justifying reasons for the resistance are ten a penny. That the Church is corrupt has nothing to do with it. Corruption is human and can be exposed and corrected. The corruption of the Church many years ago was due to the fact that it was an economic and military machine as well as a moral guidance institution. It needed worldly men as well as devout men.

The principle is another matter entirely. 2+2=4 does not become invalid because Hitler believed it.

And you are entirely free to think that contraception is not demeaning to women. But are you entirely free to preach it? If you do preach it you can be asked to give your reasons as I just gave you for the opposite view.

The Church has a view on theft, and fraud, and drugs, and pornography and many other subjects. All of them are derived from close scrutiny of society. And its position on contraception is no different.

To the extent that contraception infringes on women's rights it must be the right to manipulate men at too cheap a price. Some of us are old enough to have observed the progress of those ladies who first announced they were "on the pill".



Protestantism began with Luther resisting the celibacy of priests and the nunneries. As soon as he got enough power he married a nun. No doubt having got the hots for her in the course of his priestly duties. And if those duties included shagging her then it follows that he wanted somebody to make his dinners and keep the house in good order. In fact a number of nuns released from their devotions by Luther's policies were quickly married to his closest supporters.

what of men who would like to have children but whose wives refuse and continue to take birth control? the man who would like to be a father is not demeaned? Is having a say about birth control STRICTLY given only to those with a vagina?

I of course believe contraception should be made available, I think having all men in a hearing about it is ridiculous, but if marriage/partnership is just that, a partnership, then both men and women must share the decisions as well as the responsibility. This "We're the ones who have to carry them for nine months" makes a valid point, but it's not the be all and end all of the equation. IMO.

Well until the day a man can biologically have a baby out of his own body, a woman can decide whether she wants to have a baby or not. A man in a marriage can not force a woman to have a baby nor should he be able to. Luckily we are not in the middle ages anymore.

If that is addressed to me blue I really don't know what to say about it. There are very complex issues involved in this matter.

The Church would have to abandon an ideal to compromise. It knows, better than anybody, that in the sordid transactions of reality the ideal will rarely be lived up to. To compromise on the ideal because of that would be a political fudge. The Church would fall apart. It might live on as an empty ceremonial and tourist attraction but its intellectual support would disappear.

The church has already gone a long way towards falling apart. Frank above is correct - this is mostly about Catholic church leaders desperately trying to maintain control over their own parishioners.

Cycloptichorn

I agree. The Church agrees. But that is not a justification for using contraception.

Are you seriously trying to maintain that a woman cannot prevent being impregnated without contraception?

A lady who was a bit taller than her husband was asked what birth control methods she used. She said "I kick the bucket away when I see his eyeballs starting to rotate."

Exactly. The law didn't apply in the case of GM.

Those points are irrelevant to the issue at hand. What church agrees? Women should be able access contraceptives through their insurance just like any other legal subscription medication and she shouldn't be held hostage to another person's beliefs. That it is even questioned boggles my mind.

I am going to do something else for a while; I am fast loosing patience with this line of issues from these threads.

In your example, it's not the birth control or whether she chooses to take it that's the problem. The issue is the relationship.

Just like a man can have a vasectomy even if his wife really wants kids. It might be an asshole thing to do, but he has a right to do it if he wants.


Wait. Condoms are only issued to women?


I think that having celibate men make decisions on contraception is pure idiocy.