Mrs. Santorum

In 1996 during her 19th week of pregnancy (roughly the fifth month), Karen Santorum’s fetus caused an infection inside her and had to be removed to save her life.

The fetus was delivered and could not survive outside the womb, as doctors had predicted.

First of all, that is indescribably sad. It was brave for the couple to discuss this on NPR, as they did in 2004 with host Terry Gross.

Second of all, how can Rick Santorum oppose all abortion in all cases when terminating a pregnancy saved the life of his own wife?


http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-01-05...ortion-unless-its-to-save-his-own-wifes-life/
 
I cannot find the post, but someone here posted that Rick Santorum opposes rape exceptions from abortion bans he supports. And that his “reasoning” is that we don’t execute the rapists. I have to LOL at that “reasoning”. This is reason?

What in hell does one thing have to do with the other? This is the kind of “reasoning” that is not rational at all but is greedily grasped by followers of a lunatic as something that can excuse this abominable policy. The two have nothing to do with each other. A rape has occurred and what is under discussion is the state stepping in and forcing a woman to carry her rapist’s baby to term and give birth to it. Her body has now been violated twice, once permanently. Because giving birth changes your body, and in this case, without your consent.
Your body would absolutely never be your own again.

That we don’t execute rapists has nothing to do with this. Some say it is because they believe it’s human life from the moment of conception, but that is another argument. This “we don’t execute rapists” argument is nonsensical.

Someone else also implored us not to forget that only 2% of abortions are a result of a rape. Do you ever see any of these same people imploring you to please, please not forget that only 1% of abortions are late-term? NO! Of course not.

Further, late-term terminations are medical procedures which are reported. Rape is a notoriously underreported crime as even the FBI admits. Considering how many rapes go unreported there can be no doubt that more abortions are a result of a rape than the statistics show.

Many women do not talk about their rapes. They are perhaps even less likely to talk about them if a pregnancy which they terminated resulted. I would ask people to remember this and be careful who you get on your high moral outrage horse in front of. Chances are you know a woman who was raped even if you don’t know about the rape. Was there a pregnancy? You don’t know that either. Just a word to the wise. It's supposed to be sufficient?
 
The policy of the Catholic church is to save the innocent life, the child's life is considered the innocent life, iif it is a choice of one over the other, the mother loses.

look, you can't keep repeating the same disproven lie and expect people to pay attention to you.......
 
It’s murder if you terminate the pregnancy because delivering the baby would kill the mother (oh wait, that didn’t go over well! I got it, let’s claim that we know that NO late term abortions are ever used to save the life or health of the mother. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s it! That’s the ticket! The doctors and the women are lying! That’s it! Yeah!) but it’s “God’s will” if you induce labor so early that there is no chance the child will not be stillborn. You can claim “ a miracle may occur”. Yeah, well if you believe in miracles guess what? One may occur in a late term abortion too – in fact, isn’t the whole “Born alive” comedy series based on just that?

perhaps you haven't the intelligence to see the difference, but I suspect it's an intentional ignoring rather than ignorance......the average person can see the difference between an abortion in which the fetus is intentionally killed and a surgical procedure in which every effort is made to save BOTH the mother and child......why is it you won't acknowledge that difference?......
 
perhaps you haven't the intelligence to see the difference, but I suspect it's an intentional ignoring rather than ignorance......the average person can see the difference between an abortion in which the fetus is intentionally killed and a surgical procedure in which every effort is made to save BOTH the mother and child......why is it you won't acknowledge that difference?......

:-)
 
perhaps you haven't the intelligence to see the difference, but I suspect it's an intentional ignoring rather than ignorance......the average person can see the difference between an abortion in which the fetus is intentionally killed and a surgical procedure in which every effort is made to save BOTH the mother and child......why is it you won't acknowledge that difference?......

As I said, IMO, it's semantics. You appear to be creating a fantasy world. And in this fantasy world, medical science has not yet advanced to the state where they can inform the mother that delivering the baby would result in her death, or that inducing labor at this stage would be certain to result in a stillborn. In this fantasy world there is always an option to attempt to save both the mother and the child, and there is never a medical determination that such an attempt would be catastrophic.

That's not reality.

And that you refuse to live in reality is not my problem, concern, or interest.
 
Who has actually disproven it? All you've said is that you don't believe it, accused people of lying and then roped in Bravado the Vatican's special envoy at sea to corroborate your rantings.

the text of the directive of the Catholic Church disproved it......you can pretend that's not true all you want but that's just more dishonesty on your part.......
 
As I said, IMO, it's semantics. You appear to be creating a fantasy world. And in this fantasy world, medical science has not yet advanced to the state where they can inform the mother that delivering the baby would result in her death, or that inducing labor at this stage would be certain to result in a stillborn. In this fantasy world there is always an option to attempt to save both the mother and the child, and there is never a medical determination that such an attempt would be catastrophic.

That's not reality.

And that you refuse to live in reality is not my problem, concern, or interest.

so on one hand we have your opinion, on the other obvious fact.....guess what?......you lose....
 
I can agree with this. I agree with this even knowing that Some women will be browbeaten into decisions by authoritarian husbands. Even by abusive husbands. I can agree with even knowing that some women will “decide” to save the child and let herself die because she was brought up in a fundamentalist environment and believes she has no value other than to make babies.

I would not agree with legislation forcing doctors to save the woman’s life at the expense of the unborn. That late into a wanted pregnancy it’s a child to the mother and I understand this. We don’t live in a perfect world and not all women will make a decision based on their own best interests (which btw, that late in a wanted pregnancy CAN include saving her child). And in order to have the best system, you are always going to have some few that this system fails.
Too bad the right can’t figure that out.

Sounds like you're speaking from personal experience. I am very concerned about your emotional health. I am concerned about you and care. There is help. I'm pulling for ya.
 
As I said, IMO, it's semantics. You appear to be creating a fantasy world. And in this fantasy world, medical science has not yet advanced to the state where they can inform the mother that delivering the baby would result in her death, or that inducing labor at this stage would be certain to result in a stillborn. In this fantasy world there is always an option to attempt to save both the mother and the child, and there is never a medical determination that such an attempt would be catastrophic.

That's not reality.

And that you refuse to live in reality is not my problem, concern, or interest.

In your world every husband is authoritarian and a wife beater. That's not reality.

Your posts reveal your personal problems. Get some help. Abuse can be overcome. Everyone here is very concerned about you,.
 
It appears as if you (Damo, not Tom) are saying that the doctor should save the mother. As if it were his choice. It's not. It's the woman's choice. What part of this are you people having trouble with? This must be the big daddy complex so ingrained in the right wing, authoritarian mind, rearing its hideous face.

Further, your reasoning is beyond offensive. Now, I'm surreeeeee I have misunderstood you, but you appear to be saying that it makes sense to save the woman's life because of the possibility of "future life". Meaning she might squirt out another kid or two. You have completely devauled the woman to the point where she does not even exist as a human being. As if a woman's life has no value unless she is going to be giving birth.

This is so offensive, so sick, that it makes me ill.

I am saying that they should have known the doctor's philosophy long before she started to "push" and therefore could make an educated decision about which doctor she wanted to have during her delivery. Some people would agree with this doctor, others would not and would choose a different doctor.

Your "offense" is noted, however undeserved, due to its basis on assumption, it may be.
 
About 1% of all abortions are late-term. The right wing has made a cottage industry out of pretending that thousands of women are changing their selfish minds at the last moment and having this procedure. It’s not true. You couldn’t find a doctor who would perform it.

It’s used when going through with the birth would endanger the woman’s life. What part of that don’t you understand? The Santorums had a case where continuing the pregnancy would endanger the mother’s life. Do you understand the difference between the two? One must end the pregnancy by giving birth to a stillborn in order to save her life, the other must end the pregnancy without delivering a dead baby. It has to be removed.

Here is what the Supreme Court has held:

• even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother;”
• “health” in this context includes both physical and mental health;
• only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable; and
• states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk.

Now Congress, in the partial birth abortion ban act of 2003, found that late term abortion is never used to save the life or health of the mother.
CONGRESS found this. Do you understand that? Do you understand what that means?

I suggest you speak with a medical professional, not on the payroll of the anti-choice movement, who has an understanding of the tragic and catastrophic circumstances this procedure is used in. I find it laughable when righties whip the moral outrage about “the left” “using” the “worst thing that can happen to a parent”.

WE KNOW it’s one of the worst things that can happen to a parent. That is why we have always stated: BUTT OUT.

Now, there are many on the right who are always playing semantics. In fact, the entire right plays semantics. It’s murder if you terminate the pregnancy because delivering the baby would kill the mother (oh wait, that didn’t go over well! I got it, let’s claim that we know that NO late term abortions are ever used to save the life or health of the mother. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s it! That’s the ticket! The doctors and the women are lying! That’s it! Yeah!) but it’s “God’s will” if you induce labor so early that there is no chance the child will not be stillborn. You can claim “ a miracle may occur”. Yeah, well if you believe in miracles guess what? One may occur in a late term abortion too – in fact, isn’t the whole “Born alive” comedy series based on just that?

However, IMO, this is just semantics . That is my opinion. You can disagree, but to claim that I started this thread as an attack on the wife, is so hateful and dishonest. IT’s a claim made by alias, a hate-filled dope fiend who has been making racist and sexist posts about Michelle Obama since he got here and is now lying about this thread in order to justify them.

He’s a hateful little bastard who I have on IA because I can’t take the constant stream of hate. But that anyone here “thanks” his posts, says a lot about the people here.
If the article I posted was an attack on anyone (and it was), it was an attack on Rick Santorum. Not on his wife. On her husband who would force other husbands to watch their wives die if they were not medically able to go through with the delivery and give birth to a dead baby, but rather had to have it medically removed dead. And that is my opinion, if I may be so bold as to speak for myself.

:good4u::clap::clap::clap: Excellent response!
 
I cannot find the post, but someone here posted that Rick Santorum opposes rape exceptions from abortion bans he supports. And that his “reasoning” is that we don’t execute the rapists. I have to LOL at that “reasoning”. This is reason?

What in hell does one thing have to do with the other? This is the kind of “reasoning” that is not rational at all but is greedily grasped by followers of a lunatic as something that can excuse this abominable policy. The two have nothing to do with each other. A rape has occurred and what is under discussion is the state stepping in and forcing a woman to carry her rapist’s baby to term and give birth to it. Her body has now been violated twice, once permanently. Because giving birth changes your body, and in this case, without your consent.
Your body would absolutely never be your own again.

That we don’t execute rapists has nothing to do with this. Some say it is because they believe it’s human life from the moment of conception, but that is another argument. This “we don’t execute rapists” argument is nonsensical.

Someone else also implored us not to forget that only 2% of abortions are a result of a rape. Do you ever see any of these same people imploring you to please, please not forget that only 1% of abortions are late-term? NO! Of course not.

Further, late-term terminations are medical procedures which are reported. Rape is a notoriously underreported crime as even the FBI admits. Considering how many rapes go unreported there can be no doubt that more abortions are a result of a rape than the statistics show.


Many women do not talk about their rapes. They are perhaps even less likely to talk about them if a pregnancy which they terminated resulted. I would ask people to remember this and be careful who you get on your high moral outrage horse in front of. Chances are you know a woman who was raped even if you don’t know about the rape. Was there a pregnancy? You don’t know that either. Just a word to the wise. It's supposed to be sufficient?

Another great post. You nailed it.
 
Back
Top