Santorum’s stance does not make sense

In her defense of Rick Santorum, Kathleen Parker states, “The (Catholic) church’s objection to birth control is based on concerns that sex without consequences would lead to men reducing women ‘to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of (their) own desires’ as well as abuse of power by public authorities and a false sense of autonomy [“The trials of Saint Santorum,” Opinion, Feb. 23].

Within that framework, everything Santorum says makes sense, even if one doesn’t agree.”

No, it doesn’t. If one doesn’t agree that sex without “consequences” is a bad thing, that women cannot or should not also seek and find “satisfaction of their own desires,” that public authorities abuse their power by not interfering with peoples’ private lives and that a religious institution should determine whether you or I are autonomous, then Santorum’s stance does not make sense.

If it makes sense to Santorum then let him become a priest, with followers to scold; not president, with citizens to serve.

— Jim Woodring, Seattle

The burden of an unwanted pregnancy is not shared equally

Kathleen Parker’s opinion piece, “The trials of Saint Santorum,” posits that Rick Santorum’s view of contraception is influenced by the Catholic Church’s “concern that sex without consequences would lead to men reducing women ‘to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of (their) own desires.’”

Sorry, I just can’t buy it, whether that is Santorum’s philosophy or the broader one of the church. Without contraception, the consequence of sex is an unwanted pregnancy, a burden not shared equally by the two participants.

As a disincentive for curbing misbehavior on the part of men, it is about as effective as saying to a child, “If you don’t stop picking on your brother, I’m going to have to give him a time out.”

There may be valid religious concerns about the use of contraception, but this is not one of them.

— Bonnie Baffaro, Auburn