Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

[JoeTheJuggler]

OK, I listened to the Terry Gross/Santorum interview. He clearly says he believes it is self defense if the mother's life is threatened and then one may take the fetus's life. He just doesn't believe that is true in 99.9% of all abortions.

He's got a bit of a Herman Cain problem, though. While he made his position clear (that he's willing to make exceptions to his fantasized ban on abortions), he has elsewhere made it equally clear that he holds a contradictory position. (For example, he has said he wants "any doctor that performs an abortion [to] be criminally charged for doing so." My emphasis.)

At any rate, this problem is swamped by the greater issue that he, as with most pro-lifers, seems unaware of: that criminalizing abortion isn't something that could be done by legislation (not at the state or federal level).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah, I still stand by that.

Just don't get any of it on your shoes!

 

[Travis]

Santorum seems to think that women make decisions regarding abortions the same way they decide on what shoes to wear.

 

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid View Post
you totally ignored my post before repeating the bigoted stuff.
anal sex is no more dangerous trhan vaginal sex.
many hetero couple also enjoy anal sex.
and as i said, many queers do not take part in either, and oral sex and manual sex are much safer.
there is no truth to your claim that queers are more dangerous than straights.
drop the ignorance and lies.
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
That is so hopelessly mis-informed that I must conclude your views are simply rooted in the river of D'Nile and thus, not subject to correction.
please, prove my statements wrong.

The media's silence about rampant anal sex.

By William Saletan|Posted Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2005, at 11:23 PM E


"...anal sex is far more dangerous than oral sex. According to data released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control, the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner in unprotected oral sex with an HIV carrier is one per 10,000 acts. In vaginal sex, it's 10 per 10,000 acts. In anal sex, it's 50 per 10,000 acts. Do the math. Oral sex is 10 times safer than vaginal sex. Anal sex is five times more dangerous than vaginal sex and 50 times more dangerous than oral sex. Presumably, oral sex is far more frequent than anal sex. But are you confident it's 50 times more frequent?

A CDC fact sheet explains the risks of anal sex. First, "the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the [HIV] virus to enter the body." Second, "condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex." These risks don't just apply to HIV. According to the new survey report, the risk of transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases is likewise "higher for anal than for oral sex," and the risk "from oral sex is also believed to be lower than for vaginal intercourse."

If you live in Bergen County, N.J., congratulations. You get the only newspaper in the world that mentioned heterosexual anal sex, albeit briefly, in its write-up of the survey. Two other papers buried it in lines of statistics below their articles; the rest completely ignored it. Evidently anal sex is too icky to mention in print. But not too icky to have been tried by 35 percent of young women and 40 to 44 percent of young men—or to have killed some of them..."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2005/09/ass_backwards.html

 

[bikerdruid]

The media's silence about rampant anal sex.

By William Saletan|Posted Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2005, at 11:23 PM E


"...anal sex is far more dangerous than oral sex. According to data released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control, the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner in unprotected oral sex with an HIV carrier is one per 10,000 acts. In vaginal sex, it's 10 per 10,000 acts. In anal sex, it's 50 per 10,000 acts. Do the math. Oral sex is 10 times safer than vaginal sex. Anal sex is five times more dangerous than vaginal sex and 50 times more dangerous than oral sex. Presumably, oral sex is far more frequent than anal sex. But are you confident it's 50 times more frequent?

A CDC fact sheet explains the risks of anal sex. First, "the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the [HIV] virus to enter the body." Second, "condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex." These risks don't just apply to HIV. According to the new survey report, the risk of transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases is likewise "higher for anal than for oral sex," and the risk "from oral sex is also believed to be lower than for vaginal intercourse."

If you live in Bergen County, N.J., congratulations. You get the only newspaper in the world that mentioned heterosexual anal sex, albeit briefly, in its write-up of the survey. Two other papers buried it in lines of statistics below their articles; the rest completely ignored it. Evidently anal sex is too icky to mention in print. But not too icky to have been tried by 35 percent of young women and 40 to 44 percent of young men—or to have killed some of them..."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2005/09/ass_backwards.html

wow...you only see what you wish, eh?
i said in my post that oral sex was much safer than anal sex.
many queers do not partake in anal sex.
i, for one, do not....and i know many others.
your continued ignorance, in spite of evidence, is astounding.

so what is your plan?.....elect santorum (not bloody likely) and criminalize anal sex, or just for queers?
do you deny that anal sex is just as hazardous for straight couples?
do you deny that aids is also transmittable with vaginal sex?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The media's silence about rampant anal sex.

By William Saletan|Posted Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2005, at 11:23 PM E


"...anal sex is far more dangerous than oral sex. According to data released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control, the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner in unprotected oral sex with an HIV carrier is one per 10,000 acts. In vaginal sex, it's 10 per 10,000 acts. In anal sex, it's 50 per 10,000 acts. Do the math. Oral sex is 10 times safer than vaginal sex. Anal sex is five times more dangerous than vaginal sex and 50 times more dangerous than oral sex. Presumably, oral sex is far more frequent than anal sex. But are you confident it's 50 times more frequent?

A CDC fact sheet explains the risks of anal sex. First, "the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the [HIV] virus to enter the body." Second, "condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex." These risks don't just apply to HIV. According to the new survey report, the risk of transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases is likewise "higher for anal than for oral sex," and the risk "from oral sex is also believed to be lower than for vaginal intercourse."

If you live in Bergen County, N.J., congratulations. You get the only newspaper in the world that mentioned heterosexual anal sex, albeit briefly, in its write-up of the survey. Two other papers buried it in lines of statistics below their articles; the rest completely ignored it. Evidently anal sex is too icky to mention in print. But not too icky to have been tried by 35 percent of young women and 40 to 44 percent of young men—or to have killed some of them..."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2005/09/ass_backwards.html

If you think this supports your claims, you are wrong and here's why. You don't seem to understand the concept of a denominator in statistics.

Here are some things you've missed, not necessarily in any particular order:

• No one with valid information has disputed the variable risks that occur with different sexual acts.
• The percentage of men who have tried anal sex does not tell you how often they have it compared to how often they have vaginal sex.
• Without knowing how often each kind of sex occurs, you cannot say what the total number of cases of HIV contracted via anal vs vaginal sex is.
• Without a denominator you only know the relative risks of various sexual acts, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW THE IMPORTANT FACT OF PREVALENCE, what is the prevalence of HIV cases that were acquired via vaginal vs anal sex.
• Once again you are using US statistics when the discussion is about worldwide HIV.
• The idea you can make assumptions about the sexual practices of men across the African continent, which is populated by incredibly diverse cultures, based on a survey of American men is naive.
• The article only notes that anal sex has risks IN ADDITION TO other STD risks of oral sex.

The article is about teen's STD risk, not HIV risk specifically. The author merely points out an important finding in the survey was left out of the reporting. He makes a valid point if the assessment of the survey and reporting is correct. But the author is not making your point at all, not even close. The issue is teens are having alternate kinds of sex possibly with the false belief there is no STD risk with these alternate practices because vaginal penetration is not occurring. The author is advocating sex education include education about the risks in alternate sexual practices. He is not arguing most HIV is spread via anal intercourse and vaginal intercourse is safe.

Your version of HIV risk denial is not new, nor has it never been addressed. It would appear, however, you prefer to confirm your bias that HIV only infects people 'not like you' or who sin or whatever it is that makes you fantasize these debunked beliefs about HIV are true.

You don't understand what the numbers mean re the risk of HIV from each occurrence of vaginal intercourse with an HIV infected partner. Surely everyone who contracted HIV did not engage in tens of thousands of sex acts. There are people with HIV that have high viral loads and those with almost undetectable viral loads. It's still like Russian Roulette.

And you don't understand the reliability of numbers that are deduced from vaguely supported estimates and inadequate amounts of solid data.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

BTW, here's the data from the CDC source the author linked to:

Risk per 10,000 exposures to an infected source [vs] Exposure route:

Receptive anal intercourse 50
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse 10
Insertive anal intercourse 6.5
Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse 5
Receptive oral intercourse 1
Insertive oral intercourse 0.5

Anal sex being 5 times more dangerous than vaginal sex is hardly saying vaginal sex is unlikely to transmit HIV.

The highest levels of estimated per-act risk for HIV transmission are associated with blood transfusion, needle sharing by injection-drug users, receptive anal intercourse, and percutaneous needlestick injuries. Insertive anal intercourse, penile-vaginal exposures, and oral sex represent substantially less per-act risk.

That information is to give the exposed person seeking high risk medical interventions (post exposure HIV drugs) information needed to make an informed decision whether or not to take the drugs. But when it comes to actually prescribing the drugs, the CDC guideline says:

Substantial Risk for HIV Exposure

Exposure of
vagina, rectum, eye, mouth, or other mucous membrane, nonintact skin, or percutaneous contact

With
blood, semen, vaginal secretions, rectal secretions, breast milk, or any body fluid that is visibly contaminated with blood

When
the source is known to be HIV-infected

(The urethra is lined with mucous membrane and an uncircumcised foreskin is lined with cells that the HIV virus can enter through.)

Those CDC guidelines tell me when to prescribe moderately high risk HIV post exposure prophylaxis. The guideline does not say vaginal intercourse is so low risk for HIV as to be negligible.

 

[RandFan]

Those CDC guidelines tell me when to prescribe moderately high risk HIV post exposure prophylaxis. The guideline does not say vaginal intercourse is so low risk for HIV as to be negligible.

Great info. Thank you.

 

[Robert Prey]

Skeptic Ginger wrote:
Anal sex being 5 times more dangerous than vaginal sex is hardly saying vaginal sex is unlikely to transmit HIV.

Comment: Yeah, well I think you have to factor in those alleged heteros who were questioned as to their sexual practices who simply lied. How many? Oh, I figure probably 50 percent at least. But of course, no one really knows.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Comment: Yeah, well I think you have to factor in those alleged heteros who were questioned as to their sexual practices who simply lied. How many? Oh, I figure probably 50 percent at least. But of course, no one really knows.

What is your belief here? Do you think you cannot get HIV as long as you avoid anal sex even if you have unprotected vaginal sex with multiple women?

Do you believe everyone with HIV is at fault they contracted it?

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

[bikerdruid]

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make.

it would appear that he isn't either.

 

[RandFan]

Comment: Yeah, well I think you have to factor in those alleged heteros who were questioned as to their sexual practices who simply lied. How many? Oh, I figure probably 50 percent at least. But of course, no one really knows.

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make.

I'm with SG, even if we grant you the speculative premise (I don't) it doesn't invalidate the original premise.

 

[Bill Thompson]

He is wrong. He is misinformed. He has missed the proverbial boat. I would not call it "insane".

If this is the bar where we set for insanity, then too many of us are insane.

I was expecting the youtube video to much worse after the title and intro.

Lots of poor idiots believe stuff just because their are Catholic, Muslim, or whatever. This guy seems like one of those.

 

[Bill Thompson]

he's republican, isn't he?
'nuff said.

you are a Canadian, aren't you?
'nuff said.

 

[RandFan]

He is wrong. He is misinformed. He has missed the proverbial boat. I would not call it "insane".

If this is the bar where we set for insanity, then too many of us are insane.

I was expecting the youtube video to much worse after the title and intro.

Lots of poor idiots believe stuff just because their are Catholic, Muslim, or whatever. This guy seems like one of those.

I can respect your opinion. And I think you have a point actually. Still, if I had to start the thread today I wouldn't change anything. Santorum should not be a contender because of his moral weakness and inability to grasp what it means to be morally consistent. JMO but I'm sticking with it.

Thanks Bill

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He is wrong. He is misinformed. He has missed the proverbial boat. I would not call it "insane".

If this is the bar where we set for insanity, then too many of us are insane.

I was expecting the youtube video to much worse after the title and intro.

Lots of poor idiots believe stuff just because their are Catholic, Muslim, or whatever. This guy seems like one of those.

I don't see the claim, "insane", in the thread title or OP. Rand merely suggests, "maybe he is just insane". And it is possible Santorum is also insane even if just misinterpreting the world is not the full definition of insanity.

But it begs the question, when is misinterpreting the world just a normal brain function and when is it an abnormal brain dysfunction? Clearly schizophrenics misinterpret reality. Is it a continuum or are there two separate processes involved?


For example, are Gingrich's ideas of grandeur pathologic or merely misplaced conceit?

 

[RandFan]

I don't see the claim, "insane", in the thread title or OP. Rand merely suggests, "maybe he is just insane". And it is possible Santorum is also insane even if just misinterpreting the world is not the full definition of insanity.

But it begs the question, when is misinterpreting the world just a normal brain function and when is it an abnormal brain dysfunction? Clearly schizophrenics misinterpret reality. Is it a continuum or are there two separate processes involved?

For example, are Gingrich's ideas of grandeur pathologic or merely misplaced conceit?

Exactly, I presented a dichotomy with "insane" being a possible alternative to the title. It was rhetorical of course but I like your argument.

 

[Tricky]

Comment: Yeah, well I think you have to factor in those alleged heteros who were questioned as to their sexual practices who simply lied. How many? Oh, I figure probably 50 percent at least. But of course, no one really knows.

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make.

If I judge Robert correctly, he's saying that 50% of those people who claim they got HIV/AIDS through hetero sex are actually lying. Such an assumption would be consistent with his apparent world-view and his homophobic need to insult gay people. They're not just disease-carrying vermin. They're also liars.

 

[bikerdruid]

If I judge Robert correctly, he's saying that 50% of those people who claim they got HIV/AIDS through hetero sex are actually lying. Such an assumption would be consistent with his apparent world-view and his homophobic need to insult gay people. They're not just disease-carrying vermin. They're also liars.

this does seem to be robert's position.

 

[Robert Prey]

If I judge Robert correctly, he's saying that 50% of those people who claim they got HIV/AIDS through hetero sex are actually lying. Such an assumption would be consistent with his apparent world-view and his homophobic need to insult gay people. They're not just disease-carrying vermin. They're also liars.

Presumptive logic. Most people are not proud to admit they engage in such activities, the current trend of closet coming out of, notwithstanding.