Santorum: A rape baby is a gift from god!

useless · Jan 24, 2012

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/24/rick-santorum-daughter-abortion-rape?cat=world&type=article

Rick Santorum would encourage one of his daughters to see a pregnancy created through rape as "a gift of human life" and urge her to not consider an abortion, the socially ultra-conservative Republican presidential candidate has explained.

...

Asked by Morgan what he would do if one of his two daughters said they had been raped and were pregnant, and were "begging you to let her have an abortion", Santorum said: "I would do what every father would do – to try to counsel your daughter to do the right thing."

Asked whether this would rule out abortion even if the daughter felt having the child would ruin her life, he explained: "You can make the argument that if she doesn't have this baby, if she kills her child, that that too could ruin her life.

...

He added: "I believe and I think that the right approach is to accept this horribly created, in the sense of rape, but nevertheless, in a very broken way, a gift of human life, and accept what God is giving to you. As you know, in lots of different aspects of our life we have horrible things happening. I can't think of anything more horrible, but nevertheless we have to make the best out of a bad situation. And that is making the best of a bad situation."

So to sumarise this, if either of Santorum's daughters were raped, he would pretty much deny them the right to an abortion, the right to choose what happens to their own body, the right to decide whether they want a child or not.

This is a pretty disgusting belief, I'm not actually sure if he even believes that there is ANY case in which a woman can have an abortion.

I guess the topic of the thread will revolve around the issue of denying women abortions, and how moral it is to say to a rape victim (hypothetical or otherwise), that they shouldn't have an aboriton merely just to sate your conscience.

My own views on this is that it is just another example of the misoygny in the Republican party and in the abortion debate; that a woman MUST NOT have an abortion, and she should be forced to have the child, regardless if she wants it or not, regardless if she objects, she must have it to appease other people.

Mr. Dictator · Jan 24, 2012

If he wins, that will prove my worst fears of the American Revolution are true.

I hope freedom of religion is preserved, in this case.

Murky · Jan 24, 2012

He won't win. I doubt if he could even get re-elected to the Senate.

Mr. Dictator · Jan 24, 2012

Murky said:
He won't win. I doubt if he could even get re-elected to the Senate.

This isn't supposed to be a conversation on reality, Murky, but a hypothetical battleground where we toss our highly evolved ideologies into the field to do battle.

Mine knows Confusion :lol:

G-Max · Jan 24, 2012

If you assume that God has a plan for all of us, then his belief makes perfect sense. The problem is that assumption. At least he'd try to comfort and counsel his daughter to do the "right" thing instead of sternly forbidding it.

I'm just saying the guy's stupid, not heartless.

useless said:
My own views on this is that it is just another example of the misoygny in the Republican party

It's not misogyny if the baby is female.

Traitorfish · Jan 24, 2012

"Conservative Christian hates woman, proud of it"? Well, well, I never.

G-Max said:
It's not misogyny if the baby is female.

illram · Jan 24, 2012

To a belief system steeped in paternalism it makes perfect sense.

G-Max · Jan 24, 2012

Traitorfish said:
"Conservative Christian hates woman, proud of it"? Well, well, I never.

Most conservative Christians don't hate women. In fact, Mormons like women so much that one wife sometimes isn't enough!

GoodGame · Jan 24, 2012

I think this should be red diamonded, as it is a sensitive topic and is potentially prejudicial against such individuals (although that term is literal).

Sensationalism aside, the topic really is simply "should women have the right to decide?". Obviously Santorum chose to answer that question in a sensationalist way, since obviously he is a politician on the trail, lagging, and needs to distinquish himself from the competition if he is to have any chance of winning. The sensationalist way of approaching the topic is regrettable, really.

I'm really not surprised that Santorum, a devout Catholic, would have made the response that he did.

civ_king · Jan 24, 2012

useless said:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/...daughter-abortion-rape?cat=world&type=article

So to sumarise this, if either of Santorum's daughters were raped, he would pretty much deny them the right to an abortion, the right to choose what happens to their own body, the right to decide whether they want a child or not.

This is a pretty disgusting belief, I'm not actually sure if he even believes that there is ANY case in which a woman can have an abortion.

I guess the topic of the thread will revolve around the issue of denying women abortions, and how moral it is to say to a rape victim (hypothetical or otherwise), that they shouldn't have an abortion merely just to sate your conscience.

My own views on this is that it is just another example of the misogyny in the Republican party and in the abortion debate; that a woman MUST NOT have an abortion, and she should be forced to have the child, regardless if she wants it or not, regardless if she objects, she must have it to appease other people.

Yes, he would deny them an abortion. As to the right to abortion you should Norma McCorvey how she feels about Roe v. Wade. now.

He believes under no circumstance that the right to life of the unborn may be infringed as all people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from conception. Now if only he'd come around to evolution.

An abortion doesn't take away the horrible violation of the woman's body, it doesn't make her in pregnant.

They also assert that a woman must not kill her born children

emzie · Jan 24, 2012

If you honestly believe that conception = life, then this is the only stance one can logically have without consenting to murder.

One of my pet peeves is when people against abortion say, "except in the case of rape or incest" -- the hell does that matter if you are against abortion otherwise?

rugbyLEAGUEfan · Jan 24, 2012

If , and it's a huge if , he actually had this point of view from a moral standpoint , I may have a smidgen of sympathy for his position ( life begins at conception therefore abortion is murder.....certainly not my view but not outrageous or unarguable) . But I suspect it's far more likely that his stand is a calculated political decision which makes it 1.stupid 2. odious .

G-Max · Jan 24, 2012

contre said:
If you honestly believe that conception = life

Scientifically, that IS when a new human organism is created. At what point personhood begins is a different story.

civ_king · Jan 24, 2012

rugbyLEAGUEfan said:
If , and it's a huge if , he actually had this point of view from a moral standpoint , I may have a smidgen of sympathy for his position ( life begins at conception therefore abortion is murder.....certainly not my view but not outrageous or unarguable) . But I suspect it's far more likely that his stand is a calculated political decision which makes it 1.stupid 2. odious .

He does 100% genuinely believe this

G-Max said:
Scientifically, that IS when a new human organism is created. At what point personhood begins is a different story.

What day exactly does personhood begin, when does it become a person? If we can not prove a date then the only logical thing to prevent the killing of someone is to fix it to conception

emzie · Jan 24, 2012

G-Max said:
Scientifically, that IS when a new human organism is created. At what point personhood begins is a different story.

And cancer is life too. Clearly I'm talking about a metaphysical concept here, not a text book definition of cells metabolizing and dividing.

civ_king said:
What day exactly does personhood begin, when does it become a person? If we can not prove a date then the only logical thing to prevent the killing of someone is to fix it to conception

Ah, I see you're one of those liberal Catholics who believes in condom usage.

civ_king · Jan 24, 2012

contre said:
And cancer is life too. Clearly I'm talking about a metaphysical concept here, not a text book definition of cells metabolizing and dividing.

The joining of a sperm and egg creates a unique organism.

emzie · Jan 24, 2012

For what it's worth, I opened a thread on this a few years ago.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=340776

I much prefer the pro-lifers who are against abortion in all cases (except maybe life of mother) since their stance is less about, as Arwon would say, slut shaming.

classical_hero · Jan 24, 2012

Well he is saying that all life is precious, even if the child was conceived in a situation that should not have occurred. OF course with that stance WE HATE WOMEN. :rolleyes:

http://www.righttoliferoch.org/nforgotten.htm

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/index.html

Some sites talking about people who were born as a result of their mother's being raped. WE should not judge a child by how they were conceived, but by how they live their life.

Leoreth · Jan 24, 2012

G-Max said:
If you assume that God has a plan for all of us, then his belief makes perfect sense. The problem is that assumption.

Exactly. The problem is, with that line of reasoning you could also excuse the rapist himself. He was merely an instrument of God, wasn't he?

Traitorfish · Jan 24, 2012

contre said:
If you honestly believe that conception = life, then this is the only stance one can logically have without consenting to murder.

Well, yes, when your premises replace biology with arcane majicks, you're going to come to some strange conclusions. But consistency is not traditionally regarded as a sufficient defence of otherwise absurd views.

civ_king said:
What day exactly does personhood begin, when does it become a person? If we can not prove a date then the only logical thing to prevent the killing of someone is to fix it to conception

How so? If you can say that at point X a foetus is non-sentient, and at point Y a foetus is sentient, but don't know when the transition happens, then you can at the very most argue for drawing the line at point X. Drawing it before point X isn't "logic", it's contrived and nonsensical.

Santorum: A rape baby is a gift from god!

Social Justice Rogue

A Chain-Smoking Fox

Deity

A Chain-Smoking Fox

Deity

The Tighnahulish Kid

Deity

Deity

Red, White, & Blue, baby!

Deus Caritas Est

wicked witch of the North

Deity

Deity

Deus Caritas Est

wicked witch of the North

Deus Caritas Est

wicked witch of the North

In whom I trust

Blue Period

The Tighnahulish Kid

Similar threads