Ron Paul Is The Only Choice For Catholics

[Papist]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1314894631' post='2298676']

*off topic*

The side effects of the HPV vaccine are no worse than the side effects of any other vaccine. In a perfect world there may not be a need for an HPV vaccine, but in our world there is. Following Church teaching on sexual morality will NOT keep you from HPV unless everyone you know has also been following Church teaching on sexual morality and everyone they know has been following Church teaching on sexual morality.
[/quote]
As of June 22, 2011 there have been a total 68 VAERS[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] reports of death among those who have received Gardasil. Compare Gardasil adverse effects to another vaccine, one also given to young people, but for meningitis. Gardasil had three times the number of Emergency Room visits - more than 5,000. Reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil. Source National Vaccine Information Center

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1314899645' post='2298724']
As of June 22, 2011 there have been a total 68 VAERS[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] reports of death among those who have received Gardasil. Compare Gardasil adverse effects to another vaccine, one also given to young people, but for meningitis. Gardasil had three times the number of Emergency Room visits - more than 5,000. Reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil. Source National Vaccine Information Center
[/quote]

VAERS data cannot be used to prove a causal association between the vaccine and the adverse event. The only association between the adverse event and vaccination is temporal, meaning that the adverse event occurred sometime after vaccination. Therefore, the adverse event may be coincidental or it may have been caused by vaccination, however we cannot make any conclusions that the events reported to VAERS were caused by the vaccine.

As of June 22, 2011 there have been a total 68 VAERS reports of death among those who have received Gardasil[sup]®[/sup] . There were 54 reports among females, 3 were among males, and 11 were reports of unknown gender. Thirty two of the total death reports have been confirmed and 36 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. A death report is confirmed (verified) after a medical doctor reviews the report and any associated records. In the 32 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination.

Source: CDC

[Papist]

Gardasil contains polysorbate 80[aka Tween 80], which has been linked to infertility in mice. 10-15 years from now when these girls are grown women and are finding out that they are barren, who will connect the dots?

[Adrestia]

There's also evidence that Tween 80 does not effect fertility in rats - here's the article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2932520/?tool=pubmed

Since the amount of Tween 80 in the vaccine is minuscule compared to what the mice and rats receive, it would be erroneous to draw conclusions.

This article (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdrb.20273/full) shows that Tween 80 has no developmental or reproductive toxic effects in rats or rabbits.

(Please provide references when reporting someone else's data.)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1314819723' post='2298199']
I really don't know much about it, but that's funny because I have the opposite fear; namely, that a federal law would impose gay marriage on all the states. I think even favorable federal legislation could be a bad precedent. Either way, I don't see how this makes Paul a non-option for Catholics. He's not implicated in a pro-gay marriage agenda and the impact that his presidency would have on that agenda is unclear, but not likely favorable imo.
[/quote]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1314827970' post='2298308']
if we make a federal law that makes same-sex marriage illegal, that would set a precedent for the federal government defining marriage (which, to my knowledge, it does not; marriage is currently a state thing). with that precedent, a law could be set which requires all states to accept same sex marriage.

basically, under the guise of fear of same sex couples, you are asking the Federal Government to get into the marriage business. bad idea. keeping the Federal Government out of the marriage business would be a good thing, IMO.
[/quote]
We already have the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress, and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, which several federal courts and the Obama administration are trying to overturn as "unconstitutional."
Politically-incorrect as this idea is on Phatmass, I'd be in full support of a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The problem we have is that there are federal courts wanting to strike down state laws barring recognition of homosexual "marriage" as "unconstitutional," though their reasoning is of course completely bogus. A marriage amendment would make it more difficult for them to do so, though it's very sad that it should have to come to amending the Constitution in order to keep activist federal courts from enforcing "gay marriage" on the respective states against the will of the people of those states.

I don't think Ron Paul's stance would in itself be reason for a Catholic not to support him, though I don't think his stance on this issue is particularly heroic either. The good thing is that Paul could probably be counted on to appoint justices that would be strict constitutionalists, rather than activists who would seek to impose a liberal social agenda on the states. But I would have nothing against a constitutional amendment passed by Congress to defend "traditional marriage."

I find the breathless "slippery slope" arguments popular on here along the lines of "if we allow governments to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then next thing you know, they'll deny them to Catholics!" (or whatever exactly it is we're supposed to be so afraid of - followed no doubt by scary scenarios involving cops in wedding chapels and/or bedrooms and other apocalyptic horrors) to be simply absurd and fallacious.

We've gone for centuries of states not recognizing "gay marriages" without any such nonsense occurring. And in the unfortunate event that the government does embark on such blatant and wild religious persecution, they're not going to let niceties such as matters of "legal precedent" stand in their way. Codifying marriage legally as between a man and woman only simply helps create a bulwark against activist federal judges shoving "gay marriage" down our throats and denying the rights of the states to resist.

And I'm really not sure what exactly the libertarian-anarchist crowd is so afraid of regarding this matter anyway. It's not like homosexual couples are being viciously persecuted by states that do not grant them marriage licenses (all crazed hyperbole to the contrary). They are allowed to live together and bugger each other to their little hearts' content in the privacy of their own homes - this is simply not legally recognized by the state as "marriage." Really, their legal plight is no worse than that of the millions of heterosexual cohabitating couples who choose not to marry.
For those that want "government out of the marriage business," such a situation would hardly sound like a doomsday scenario.

It seems to me that whole slippery-slope "argument" is just clever, if obvious, verbal ju-jitsu employed by the "gay rights" crowd to keep "religious conservatives" from opposing "gay marriage."
The sad thing is that so many on here seem to be falling for it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1314890270' post='2298637']
Marriage did exist prior to Christianity. Old Testament reveals that. I am sure male/female relationships existed prior to that, but I would hesitate to say that it qualifies as marriage as it is traditionally defined.
[/quote]
Natural law marriage goes back to Adam and Eve.

[Adrestia]

The legal definition of "marriage" has certain rights & responsibilities. Hospital visitation can be limited to immediate family only. The person making health care decisions when a person is incapacitated is the next of kin. These are just a couple of the issues that many same-sex couples bring up when discussing "marriage" laws.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1314917574' post='2298846']
The legal definition of "marriage" has certain rights & responsibilities. Hospital visitation can be limited to immediate family only. The person making health care decisions when a person is incapacitated is the next of kin. These are just a couple of the issues that many same-sex couples bring up when discussing "marriage" laws.
[/quote]
Those issues can be easily taken care of by power of attorney (ask CatherineM - she's made some good points on this subject, and has professional experience in the matter).

The real issue is not rights, but pushing a social agenda, and redefining the meaning of marriage and family.

[Norseman82]

Same-sex marriage becomes a federal issue when Adam and Steve seek to file a joint return as a married couple and claim the lower tax rates afforded married couples.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1314916437' post='2298840']


We already have the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress, and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, which several federal courts and the Obama administration are trying to overturn as "unconstitutional."
Politically-incorrect as this idea is on Phatmass, I'd be in full support of a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The problem we have is that there are federal courts wanting to strike down state laws barring recognition of homosexual "marriage" as "unconstitutional," though their reasoning is of course completely bogus. A marriage amendment would make it more difficult for them to do so, though it's very sad that it should have to come to amending the Constitution in order to keep activist federal courts from enforcing "gay marriage" on the respective states against the will of the people of those states.

I don't think Ron Paul's stance would in itself be reason for a Catholic not to support him, though I don't think his stance on this issue is particularly heroic either. The good thing is that Paul could probably be counted on to appoint justices that would be strict constitutionalists, rather than activists who would seek to impose a liberal social agenda on the states. But I would have nothing against a constitutional amendment passed by Congress to defend "traditional marriage."

I find the breathless "slippery slope" arguments popular on here along the lines of "if we allow governments to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then next thing you know, they'll deny them to Catholics!" (or whatever exactly it is we're supposed to be so afraid of - followed no doubt by scary scenarios involving cops in wedding chapels and/or bedrooms and other apocalyptic horrors) to be simply absurd and fallacious.

We've gone for centuries of states not recognizing "gay marriages" without any such nonsense occurring. And in the unfortunate event that the government does embark on such blatant and wild religious persecution, they're not going to let niceties such as matters of "legal precedent" stand in their way. Codifying marriage legally as between a man and woman only simply helps create a bulwark against activist federal judges shoving "gay marriage" down our throats and denying the rights of the states to resist.

And I'm really not sure what exactly the libertarian-anarchist crowd is so afraid of regarding this matter anyway. It's not like homosexual couples are being viciously persecuted by states that do not grant them marriage licenses (all crazed hyperbole to the contrary). They are allowed to live together and bugger each other to their little hearts' content in the privacy of their own homes - this is simply not legally recognized by the state as "marriage." Really, their legal plight is no worse than that of the millions of heterosexual cohabitating couples who choose not to marry.
For those that want "government out of the marriage business," such a situation would hardly sound like a doomsday scenario.

It seems to me that whole slippery-slope "argument" is just clever, if obvious, verbal ju-jitsu employed by the "gay rights" crowd to keep "religious conservatives" from opposing "gay marriage."
The sad thing is that so many on here seem to be falling for it.
[/quote]
You know, I might actually enjoy a discussion about this, and may even agree with your main point, but your manner comes off so poorly in this post that I don't really want to have anything to do with it. Thanks anyway though.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Papist]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1314903930' post='2298744']
There's also evidence that Tween 80 does not effect fertility in rats - here's the article: http://www.ncbi.nlm....20/?tool=pubmed

Since the amount of Tween 80 in the vaccine is minuscule compared to what the mice and rats receive, it would be erroneous to draw conclusions.

This article (http://onlinelibrary...bdrb.20273/full) shows that Tween 80 has no developmental or reproductive toxic effects in rats or rabbits.

(Please provide references when reporting someone else's data.)
[/quote]

"Polysorbate 80 is a very effective surfactant used to trick and open up the blood brain barrier (Lannone, Sun, Kreuter and Tianbin for starters) , and allow nano-drugs to be dragged through into the brain."--Hilary Butler
“Gardasil contains Polysorbate 80, which is linked to infertility in mice,” noted Dee Nicholson, National Communications Director for Freedom in Canadian Health Care. [Nov 2007] Sleight of Handling: More Merck Magic Tricks With HPV Vaccine By Christopher C. Barr
A study published in December, 2005 discovered that Tween80 can cause anaphylaxis, a sometimes fatal reaction characterized by a sharp drop in blood pressure, hives, and breathing difficulties. Researchers concluded that the severe reaction was not a typical allergic response characterized by the combination of IgE antibodies and the release of histamines; it was caused by a serious disruption that had occurred within the immune system. Exploring Vaccines

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, which is part of the United Nations, scientists from the organization are developing vaccines specifically to damage fertility as a method of contraception. A suggested ingredient for the vaccine is tween 80 (polysorbate 80): “In a preferred embodiment the vaccine comprises oil, preferably a biodegradable oil such as squalene oil. Typically, the vaccine is prepared using an adjuvant concentrate which contains lecithin in squalene oil. The aqueous solution glycoprotein is typically a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution, and additionally preferably contains Tween 80.” (Fertility Impairing Vaccine And Methods of Use’ This application claims the benefit of U. S. Provisional Application No. 60/070,375, filed January 2,1998, U. S. Provisional Application No. 60/071,406, filed January 15,1998.)

[rizz_loves_jesus]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1314884916' post='2298609']
As a liberal libertarian, I see no reason for the state to have an institution of marriage, and little reason for the state to be involved in marriage. This is a position that Catholics should feel comfortable with since centuries ago the civil authority remained absent from marriage, when Italy began enacting laws regarding marriage the Church became a strong opponent calling it grave matter to go to the state for marriage and an automatically excommunicatable offense.
[/quote]

This is pretty much how I feel about the gay marriage situation as well. I don't think either the state [i]or[/i] the federal government should try to define what is moral or immoral--that's just dangerous.

Also, I don't need any government to tell me when my marriage is valid or invalid. I can make that decision for myself perfectly fine, thank you.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1314901547' post='2298731']

VAERS data cannot be used to prove a causal association between the vaccine and the adverse event. [/quote]
Wow it's almost like you know what you're talking about more than others on this thread because [i][b]you do this for a living[/b][/i] or something. Maybe others should take the back seat to you on this matter since they probably don't[b][i] do this for a living[/i][/b].

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1314928169' post='2298942']
"Polysorbate 80 is a very effective surfactant used to trick and open up the blood brain barrier (Lannone, Sun, Kreuter and Tianbin for starters) , and allow nano-drugs to be dragged through into the brain."--Hilary Butler
“Gardasil contains Polysorbate 80, which is linked to infertility in mice,” noted Dee Nicholson, National Communications Director for Freedom in Canadian Health Care. [Nov 2007] Sleight of Handling: More Merck Magic Tricks With HPV Vaccine By Christopher C. Barr[/quote]
A quote is not a reference. I can't find the original study, so I can't comment on it. Above I did provide links to two original studies that show no effect on fertility in rats or rabbits.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1314928169' post='2298942']
A study published in December, 2005 discovered that Tween80 can cause anaphylaxis, a sometimes fatal reaction characterized by a sharp drop in blood pressure, hives, and breathing difficulties. Researchers concluded that the severe reaction was not a typical allergic response characterized by the combination of IgE antibodies and the release of histamines; it was caused by a serious disruption that had occurred within the immune system. Exploring Vaccines[/quote]
That study was for one person (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1081120610610241). One person had an anaphylactic response to tween 80. Far more people have anaphylaxis due to peanuts.


[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1314928169' post='2298942']
According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, which is part of the United Nations, scientists from the organization are developing vaccines specifically to damage fertility as a method of contraception. A suggested ingredient for the vaccine is tween 80 (polysorbate 80): “In a preferred embodiment the vaccine comprises oil, preferably a biodegradable oil such as squalene oil. Typically, the vaccine is prepared using an adjuvant concentrate which contains lecithin in squalene oil. The aqueous solution glycoprotein is typically a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution, and additionally preferably contains Tween 80.” (Fertility Impairing Vaccine And Methods of Use’ This application claims the benefit of U. S. Provisional Application No. 60/070,375, filed January 2,1998, U. S. Provisional Application No. 60/071,406, filed January 15,1998.)
[/quote]
I'm guessing that you don't actually understand how a vaccine works. The tween 80 is not an antigen, it is included as an ingredient in the vaccine for delivery, not for antigenicity.

By the way, many formulations of the BCG vaccine contain tween 80. The BCG vaccine is given to children aged 10-13 years of age in nearly all countries except the Netherlands and the United States. If tween 80 in vaccines caused infertility it would already be evident. (BCG is given for tuberculosis. Whether it's effective or not is controversial, to say the least.)

[Papist]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1315002515' post='2299342']
A quote is not a reference. I can't find the original study, so I can't comment on it. Above I did provide links to two original studies that show no effect on fertility in rats or rabbits.


That study was for one person ([url="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1081120610610241"]http://www.sciencedi...081120610610241[/url]). One person had an anaphylactic response to tween 80. Far more people have anaphylaxis due to peanuts.

I'm guessing that you don't actually understand how a vaccine works. The tween 80 is not an antigen, it is included as an ingredient in the vaccine for delivery, not for antigenicity.

By the way, many formulations of the BCG vaccine contain tween 80. The BCG vaccine is given to children aged 10-13 years of age in nearly all countries except the Netherlands and the United States. If tween 80 in vaccines caused infertility it would already be evident. (BCG is given for tuberculosis. Whether it's effective or not is controversial, to say the least.)
[/quote]
[url="http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO1999034825&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCT+Biblio"]http://www.wipo.int/...&tab=PCT+Biblio[/url]
[url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8473002?dopt=Abstract"]http://www.ncbi.nlm....2?dopt=Abstract[/url]
Specific role of polysorbate 80 coating on the targeting of nanoparticles to the brain [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14967540"]http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14967540[/url]

Tween 80, Triton X-100, and Nonoxynol-9 are used in vaccines. Nonoxynol-9 (N-9) also is used as a spermicide in vaginal gels to prevent contraception and was used in a H1N1 Vaccine Trial.

Triton X-100 and Tween 80 were mixed with DDT to spray on crops in the 1940s and 1950s – combinations of these chemicals are still in pesticides today. Polysorbate 80, also known as Tween 80, is a surfactant in these vaccines: DTaP, DTaP-HebB-IIPV, DTaP-Hib, Gardasil, Influenza, Rotavirus, and Tdap
...
The American Cancer Society says even though infection with the sexually transmitted virus HPV is an important risk factor for cervical cancer, most women with HPV infection do not get cervical cancer. Doctors believe other factors must come into play for this cancer to develop. Some of these factors are smoking, HIV infection, Chlamydia infection, poor diet, long-term use of birth control pills, multiple pregnancies, low income, mothers who took hormonal drug DES, and family history. These are not typical risk factors affecting junior high girls.

According to the National Institutes of Health National Cancer institute, in more than 90% of the cases, HPV infections are harmless and go away without treatment. And according to the CDC, most cervical cancer can be prevented and cervical cancer is very rare in women who get regular PAP tests. The CDC says there are more than 100 strains or types of HPV and over 30 strains are sexually transmitted. Yet the vaccine under consideration for mandate covers only 4 strains. About 30% of cervical cancers can’t be prevented by the vaccine, so women will still need regular cervical cancer screenings.

The only current vaccine manufacturer for the HPV vaccine, Merck, admits on their package insert that the duration of immunity from the vaccine is unknown. In clinical trials, the vaccine’s effectiveness was only followed for 4 years. Yet we do know from the CDC that the incubation period for the HPV virus is about 20 years and the median age of women diagnosed with cervical cancer is 48.

Merck/Gardasil claiming proof of cervical cancer prevention by vaccinating preteen girls is bogus. Despite the safety concerns, the necessity and effectiveness simply is not there. People can give it to their daughter, that is your parental right. I will not be.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Papist