About Me

My Photo
Australian philosopher, literary critic, and professional writer. Author of FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND THE SECULAR STATE.

Saturday, January 07, 2012

Santorum opposes contraception

Rick Santorum says that the US state legislatures should be free to ban contraceptives. Needless to say, this means that he wants these legislatures to be able to interfere in very intimate matters relating to people's private lives.

But as you can see if you follow the link, this is not just a theoretical point in constitutional law - he actually dislikes contraception and makes pretty clear that he wishes the legislatures would actually ban it.

Note this line:
“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
Hmm ... "are supposed to be, eh?" Hmm ... are supposed to be according to what authority? It's one thing to blather about the supposed "dangers" of contraception, whatever they are, because at least that sounds like the government acting to address some real or imagined civil or secular interest. But when you start talking about "how things are supposed to be" you are moving beyond the role of government in protecting people's civil interests into protecting some kind of divine purpose or some teleological concept of how the universe functions, or some such thing. This is well beyond what the state should get involved in.

Then again, I'm not the first to mention that all of the Republican candidates this year appear to be (a) to greater or lesser extents, theocrats; and (b) nutjobs. If heaven did exist, we'd have to pray for it to help the USA if one of these people became its next president. *Shudder.*

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Despite the far-right evangelical nutjob wing of the Republican party currently having a love affair with him, Rick Santorum has virtually no chance of getting the Republican party's nomination, and even less of a chance to win in the general election than John McCain (who is not running).

Unless Jon Huntsman sneaks up on everyone from behind (unlikely since he is so far down in the polls right now), Mitt Romney will be the Republican party nominee. Primarily because he is the most photogenic, but also because he is not quite as overtly batshit insane as the rest of the candidates.

Thalamus said...

Has it crossed you mind that maybe Santorum is just swindling votes from his Christian conservative electorate by cajoling them? Perhaps, if, in a flagrant display of God's sordid sense of humor, he becomes the next president, he'll yield to congressional pressure and move to a more centralist position. Which is why I'm not so terrified.

I guess that's the virtue and the vice of having a representative democracy. Respectively, the Santorums of the world wouldn't be so easily allowed to enact their rabid proposals, but the Obamas of the world keep getting stifled by conservative circles in congress....Sometimes I think some kind of modern aristocracy would turn out better results.

March Hare said...

I hope a strong showing from Paul will push the other candidate to more liberal (socially) and Constitutional policies than they, or Obama, currently talk about.

If he actually wins and tries to implement a gold standard, well, that would be ... interesting.