This is mind-blowing. To think that I used to have some respect for John McCain.
The question recently put to McCain, on his Straight-Talk Express campaign tour, was straight-forward. Here’s the transcript of what unfolded:
Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”
Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”
Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”
Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out . . .
All I can figure is that McCain’s lust for power has shorted out some important neurons in his head. Or he’s convinced that a person who is ignorant on important issues can be elected president–where would he get that idea?
In case John McCain is reading this blog, here is the answer from Wikipedia:
The best evidence to date indicates that typical condom use reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission by approximately 80% over the long-term, though the benefit is likely to be higher if condoms are used correctly on every occasion. The effective use of condoms and screening of blood transfusion in North America, Western and Central Europe is credited with contributing to the low rates of AIDS in these regions.
McCain is a weasel. Look up "weasel" in the dictionary and you will see his picture. Yes, I know I am being baldly contemptuous, but McCain deserves no better. Look up "fawning" and you will see his picture there, too. He is like a dog that wimpers and wags its tail to display obsequiousness. He will say anything to curry favor with the extreme evangelical right-wing of the Republican party, even feigning ignorance about a topic that is understood by anyone who has ever served in the military: using condoms to reduce the risk of STDs. He knows perfectly well that condoms reduce the spread of HIV, but doesn't want to say so for fear of touching one of the many "third-rails" that Chritstian extremists use to decide their vote. Abstinence-only sex ed is one of them.
Here is how a Christian pro-choice woman justifies abortion…
"The Book of Exodus clearly indicates that the fetus does not have the same legal status as a person (Chapter 21:22-23). That verse indicates that if a man pushes a pregnant woman and she then miscarries, he is required only to pay a fine. If the fetus were considered a full person, he would be punished more severely as though he had taken a life."
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/120/story_12021_1….
God help us.
Indeed, the Bible says nothing about conception, pregnancy, birth or abortion, nor does it say "when life begins" (which is irrelavant to the abortion debate anyway, for reasons I've already discussed, see http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=912). In fact, the Bible adds nothing to any field of scientific understanding, suggesting that it was written by contemporary humans, not an omniscient god. One would have thought that an omniscient god would have foreseen the mess that would result over abortion and would have avoided it by making "His Word" explicit on this point. Obviously, he was so busy writing Commandments that told us how to worship him that he forgot to write any about saving fetuses. In fact, he wouldn't even have needed to write another Commandment, he only needed to embellish the one about "thou shalt not kill" with the sentence: "That includes fetuses." Considering all the "lives" god might have saved with just those three words, it certainly seems odd that he didn't.