Is Santorum too extreme?

[Zyphlin]

Suuuure she didn't, uh-huh. She didn't have an abortion, she just had labor induced to deliver the baby so it could die. :roll:

Again, pure fantasy. Every legitimate report of the pregancy states that the labor was not purposefully induced but occured naturally due to the bodies reaction to the infection and their attempts to fight it. What she did have was a drug that causes labor to speed up once its already on going. While the drug is used at times for abortive purposes, typically in expelling an aborted fetus or inducing labor prior to when the fetus is viable, there are also legitimate medical reasons that it is used as well. So your entire argument is based on 1) a bold faced lie and 2) a baseless assumption that the drug was used after labor had begun for an abortoin rather than any other reasons.

Your source has had its biased and assumptive reporting style destroyed in a number of threads already dealing with the subject, not going to drag another one down with your baseless and worthless lies.

Not to mention your entire argument is founded upon a SECOND bald faced lie...that Santorum is against allowing abortions in cases where the mother's life is in mortal danger.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Again, pure fantasy. Every legitimate report of the pregancy states that the labor was not purposefully induced but occured naturally due to the bodies reaction to the infection and their attempts to fight it. What she did have was a drug that causes labor to speed up once its already on going. While the drug is used at times for abortive purposes, typically in expelling an aborted fetus or inducing labor prior to when the fetus is viable, there are also legitimate medical reasons that it is used as well. So your entire argument is based on 1) a bold faced lie and 2) a baseless assumption that the drug was used after labor had begun for an abortoin rather than any other reasons.

Your source has had its biased and assumptive reporting style destroyed in a number of threads already dealing with the subject, not going to drag another one down with your baseless and worthless lies.

Not to mention your entire argument is founded upon a SECOND bald faced lie...that Santorum is against allowing abortions in cases where the mother's life is in mortal danger.

My "source," which you think is biased because you disagree with it -- is a rightwing source. The title of the article you're calling, "pure fantasy," is, Liberal Web Site Lies: Claims Santorum’s Wife Had Abortion

:lamo:lamo:lamo

 

[nathanjames1791]

And Obama isn't?

I agree, also I dont think Santorum is that extreme, alot of the things that are mentioned here are Santorum stating his own religions views and not actual political stances. People are just stunned when they see somone who actually has strong religious views. they imediately assume the guy is a nutcase.

 

[Dittohead not!]

So, what is really important in choosing a president?

1. His belief/non belief in the Bible?
2. His interpretation of the Bible?
3. His stance on abortion?
4. His views on homosexuality?
5. His mental stability?
6. His views of and understanding of economics?
7. His likely actions as commander in chief?
8. His views on individual liberty?

As for me, give me a mentally stable president who has a realistic idea about how to help the economy and end deficit spending.
Oh, yes, and one who is unlikely to start any more unnecessary wars or advocate any more laws that curtail individual liberty.

Is there such a person?

 

[Boo Radley]

So, what is really important in choosing a president?

1. His belief/non belief in the Bible?
2. His interpretation of the Bible?
3. His stance on abortion?
4. His views on homosexuality?
5. His mental stability?
6. His views of and understanding of economics?
7. His likely actions as commander in chief?
8. His views on individual liberty?

As for me, give me a mentally stable president who has a realistic idea about how to help the economy and end deficit spending.
Oh, yes, and one who is unlikely to start any more unnecessary wars or advocate any more laws that curtail individual liberty.

Is there such a person?

If you find that person, count me as a supporter.

 

[Zyphlin]

My "source," which you think is biased because you disagree with it -- is a rightwing source. The title of the article you're calling, "pure fantasy," is, Liberal Web Site Lies: Claims Santorum’s Wife Had Abortion

:lamo:lamo:lamo

The source you linked is as you said. However, what you did was not actually take anything stated by the actual source you linked....rather, instead, you took out the one section of it that they quoted from the biased, and rife with inaccuracies, Jezabel site and presented it as if it your link was stating it as fact.

In reality, your entire paragraph...which your source quoted from Jeezabel...was thoroughly ran down as a "Lie" by the very source you sited. Yet instead of actually pointing that out you instead tired to use the "OMG MY SOURCE IS RIGHT WING" as a shield hoping that people wouldn't read it and see the fact that you took the words they stated were untrue and tried to peddle it as truth.

The line directly after the paragraph you took, which was quoting the biased and incorrect jeezabel site, was this: "Conservative writer Dana Loesch says Jezebel “confuses an attempt to undergo surgery to save the life of her child with procedures a woman undergoes a to end the life of her child.” Surprisingly, you left that part out of your post because it didn't suit your dishonest attempt to lie about the situation and hide the fact that you got called on your utter bull****.

I also enjoyed how you've ignored the fact that the drug they used to speed labor along has medical uses for such a practice other than abortion, ignored the fact that he's actually supported the legality of the types of abortions you talked about, and ignored the fact that your own source highlights that the one single paragraph you posted from it is actually a giant misrepresentation and dishonest attempt to mislead and lie.

But yeah...enjoy your :lamo smiley's :roll: Don't let facts interrupt your laughter at your delusional notion that you're anywhere close to correct on this.

 

[American]

Well, considering he has continued every policy that GW Bush did and the only thing he campaigned on that he tried to implement, health care, was compromised all to hell, no, he isn't.

The Catholic Church, for one, would beg to differ with you.

 

[CriticalThought]

You think sex with dogs and marrying many women is okay?

1. Dogs cannot consent to sex, therefore it is irrelevant and flat out stupid to bring them in a discussion of consensual sex.
2. Marrying multiple women has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. "Do you think that people should have the right to have sex with multiple women in their own bedroom" would be a more relevant question, but sodomy laws did not make such a practice illegal.

So I can't figure out what the hell you are talking about. Why would you bring up examples that have nothing to do with the question?

Do you believe the government should be able to regulate what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom? They can certainly regulate how many people you marry, but that has nothing to do with what you do in your own bedroom. They can regulate that you don't have sex with partners that can't consent, but that has nothing to do with what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom.

 

[CriticalThought]

As for me, give me a mentally stable president who has a realistic idea about how to help the economy and end deficit spending.
Oh, yes, and one who is unlikely to start any more unnecessary wars or advocate any more laws that curtail individual liberty.

Is there such a person?

Yes, but he is too moderate to be nominated by either parties.

 

[Grendel]

I agree, also I dont think Santorum is that extreme, alot of the things that are mentioned here are Santorum stating his own religions views and not actual political stances. People are just stunned when they see somone who actually has strong religious views. they imediately assume the guy is a nutcase.

He faulted Obama for not basing his policy on the right Christian theology.

A day after telling an Ohio audience that Obama's agenda is based on "some phony theology, not a theology based on the Bible," the GOP presidential candidate said he wasn't attacking the president's Christianity.

Santorum decries 'phony theology' | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

If Santorum is faulting Obama for not basing his policy on the correct theology, that very strongly implies that Santorum fully intends to base his policies on his theology; in other words, that he's a theocrat.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The source you linked is as you said. However, what you did was not actually take anything stated by the actual source you linked....rather, instead, you took out the one section of it that they quoted from the biased, and rife with inaccuracies, Jezabel site and presented it as if it your link was stating it as fact.

I think you are incorrect, the induced labor was a result of the antibiotics AND the use of Pitocin (oxytocin):

According to Karen Santorum's book, ''Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum,'' she later developed a life-threatening intrauterine infection and a fever that reached nearly 105 degrees. She went into labor when she was 20 weeks pregnant. After resisting at first, she allowed doctors to give her the drug Pitocin to speed the birth. Gabriel lived just two hours.

The Believer - New York Times
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In reality, your entire paragraph...which your source quoted from Jeezabel...was thoroughly ran down as a "Lie" by the very source you sited. Yet instead of actually pointing that out you instead tired to use the "OMG MY SOURCE IS RIGHT WING" as a shield hoping that people wouldn't read it and see the fact that you took the words they stated were untrue and tried to peddle it as truth.

The line directly after the paragraph you took, which was quoting the biased and incorrect jeezabel site, was this: "Conservative writer Dana Loesch says Jezebel “confuses an attempt to undergo surgery to save the life of her child with procedures a woman undergoes a to end the life of her child.” Surprisingly, you left that part out of your post because it didn't suit your dishonest attempt to lie about the situation and hide the fact that you got called on your utter bull****.

I also enjoyed how you've ignored the fact that the drug they used to speed labor along has medical uses for such a practice other than abortion, ignored the fact that he's actually supported the legality of the types of abortions you talked about, and ignored the fact that your own source highlights that the one single paragraph you posted from it is actually a giant misrepresentation and dishonest attempt to mislead and lie.

But yeah...enjoy your :lamo smiley's :roll: Don't let facts interrupt your laughter at your delusional notion that you're anywhere close to correct on this.

Well since the source I sited is using Mrs. Santorum's autobiography, not sure where your argument goes.

Further, since Rick has stated that medical reasons for abortions are "phony", how does he face himself in the mirror?

 

[Vette]

Santorum isn't a theocrat any more than Obama is. This is just fear tactics being played by Obama supporters.

In a speech Obama stated:

His policy, he testified “as a Christian,” “coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’ ”

Oh no! Does that make Obama a Theocrat as well?

It's my observation that anytime someone on the right mentions God or religion the left starts barking about Theocracy yet there are countless examples of leaders on the left mentioning God or religion and the same people say nothing. Why?

 

[Boo Radley]

The Catholic Church, for one, would beg to differ with you.

Trust me, that doesn't make Sam wrong.


:coffeepap

 

[Wiggen]

Oh look, someone stupidly stating something provably false...yet agian.

1. His wife didn't get an abortion
2. Santorum supports legalized abortion solely in the case where the woman's life is in mortal danger

He also considers children born of rape to be a 'gift from God'; I guess it then follows that being raped must also be a 'gift from God'. After all, look at the wonderful result.

 

[Wiggen]

I agree, also I dont think Santorum is that extreme, alot of the things that are mentioned here are Santorum stating his own religions views and not actual political stances. People are just stunned when they see somone who actually has strong religious views. they imediately assume the guy is a nutcase.

Beause people who have extreme religious views are nutcases.

 

[Zyphlin]

I think you are incorrect, the induced labor was a result of the antibiotics AND the use of Pitocin (oxytocin):

I don't understand why people keep stating one thing then posting something entirely different

The labor occured in part due to the infection and the antibiotics, which were given to fight the infection NOT to induce labor.

Pitocin was given AFTER labor had begun. You can't INDUCE something that's already begun. You CAN speed it along, which is what Pitocin is used for. By the way, you're yet another person that hasn't touched the fact that doctors use pitocin to speed labor along for medical reasons other than abortions so simply going "Pitocin = Abortoin" is erronious.

Well since the source I sited is using Mrs. Santorum's autobiography, not sure where your argument goes.

Your source doesn't say what you're saying

You're stating that she induced labor

Your source is saying that labor came about due to attempts to combat the infection and then was sped up for medical reasons by the pitocin. Her source, at no point, indicates that they sought to induce labor.

Further, since Rick has stated that medical reasons for abortions are "phony", how does he face himself in the mirror?

Again, you people crack me up with bald faced lies and misrepresentation.

I'll let Redress point out this one...

By the way:

Santorum on the Issues

Santorum is possibly the most fervent top-tier anti-abortionist left in the presidential race. He firmly believes in the preservation of life, unless the fetus was conceived from an incestuous relationship or as a result of rape. Additionally, he also makes an exception for pregnancies that presents mortal danger to a mother

Always fact check.

Notice the bold. Santorum doesn't believe a "health risk", defined broadly to the point where "it'll make the mother depressed", is enough to warrant an abortion. However in the cases of MORTAL DANGER his record is one of not opposing its legality.

 

[Zyphlin]

He also considers children born of rape to be a 'gift from God'; I guess it then follows that being raped must also be a 'gift from God'. After all, look at the wonderful result.

Translation:

I can't actually argue against the things Zyphlin stated so I will attempt to lurch and grab onto some other issue to appeal to emotion because I don't have the ability, facts, or skill needed to actually counter the things he says on the actual issue at hand.

Sorry...the flaw in your plan is I'm not a Santorum supporter, and I actually dislike much of the strictness of his social views. That doesn't change the fact that the bald faced lies and slanderous attacks on him are disgusting to the point that it urges one to set the record straight even if they disagree with Santorum. Simply actually wishing people to use those inconvienent things like "facts" doesn't equal agreeing with all the ridiculous crap Santorum's stated. Sorry to burst your bubble, but nice attempt to win through fallacy there.

 

[Redress]

I'll let Redress point out this one...



Notice the bold. Santorum doesn't believe a "health risk", defined broadly to the point where "it'll make the mother depressed", is enough to warrant an abortion. However in the cases of MORTAL DANGER his record is one of not opposing its legality.

Your source is partisan and not trustworthy. :lol:

So we have a conservative source that attacks Santorum and a liberal source that defends him. Life is weird.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I don't understand why people keep stating one thing then posting something entirely different
The labor occured in part due to the infection and the antibiotics, which were given to fight the infection NOT to induce labor.
Pitocin was given AFTER labor had begun. You can't INDUCE something that's already begun. You CAN speed it along, which is what Pitocin is used for. By the way, you're yet another person that hasn't touched the fact that doctors use pitocin to speed labor along for medical reasons other than abortions so simply going "Pitocin = Abortoin" is erronious.
Your source doesn't say what you're saying
You're stating that she induced labor
Your source is saying that labor came about due to attempts to combat the infection and then was sped up for medical reasons by the pitocin. Her source, at no point, indicates that they sought to induce labor.

Um, Karen objected to the injection of pitocin precisely because she knew it would induce the labor, she wanted to stop the labor. The doctors did not want to stop the labor, they knew it would be fatal for both mother and child. Karen relented, agreed to the pitocin injection. It was an induced labor, antibiotics do not induce labor, pitocin DOES induce labor, it is used in these situations for that purpose.

Again, you people crack me up with bald faced lies and misrepresentation.
I'll let Redress point out this one...
Notice the bold. Santorum doesn't believe a "health risk", defined broadly to the point where "it'll make the mother depressed", is enough to warrant an abortion. However in the cases of MORTAL DANGER his record is one of not opposing its legality.

Longshot GOP presidential hopeful and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum stomped for votes in Iowa on Tuesday, trumpeting his “culture wars” message. A longtime anti-abortion activist, Santorum is selling himself as the leading social conservative in a crowded field. Yesterday in West Des Moines, he made an appearance at a “crisis pregnancy center” called Informed Choices that tries to talk women out of having abortions. Santorum said that he “separates [himself] from the rest of the pack” and criticized the other candidates for simply “checking the box” on anti-abortion issues.
When discussing his track record as a champion of the partial birth abortion ban, Santorum dismissed exceptions other senators wanted to carve out to protect the life and health of mothers, calling such exceptions “phony”:
SANTORUM: When I was leading the charge on partial birth abortion, several members came forward and said, “Why don’t we just ban all abortions?” Tom Daschle was one of them, if you remember. And Susan Collins, and others. They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective.

Santorum’s complete lack of empathy for women who find themselves with life-threatening pregnancies is repugnant, but not altogether surprising. When the Senate took up the ban in the ’90s, the debate was focused not on banning an abortion method, but rather on what exceptions would be allowed under the new law. Senators led by Santorum “refused to allow an exception even to protect the woman from serious harm to her health,” while President Clinton refused to sign the bill without one.
Although there are any number of serious medical emergencies that might require a woman to terminate a pregnancy in her third trimester to protect her own health, Santorum and his allies “said that ‘health’ is nothing but a loophole for women who would abort a pregnancy to fit into a prom dress.” Back then, Santorum decried “the selfishness, the individual self-centeredness” of legislators who were concerned about the health of pregnant women. Judging by his latest remarks, he’s still holding a grudge.

Santorum Calls Abortion Exceptions To Protect Health Of The Mother 'Phony' | ThinkProgress

 

[Redress]

To my fellow liberals: the abortion his wife had is a losing issue for us(even if it was a real issue). You cannot go there without looking bad yourself. Period. Let's show some class and stick to debating his actual stand on abortion and why we disagree with it. We can do that without ever bringing his wife into the discussion.

 

[Wake]

To my fellow liberals: the abortion his wife had is a losing issue for us(even if it was a real issue). You cannot go there without looking bad yourself. Period. Let's show some class and stick to debating his actual stand on abortion and why we disagree with it. We can do that without ever bringing his wife into the discussion.

And this is why you're an example of a fair liberal in debate.

 

[MarineTpartier]

To my fellow liberals: the abortion his wife had is a losing issue for us(even if it was a real issue). You cannot go there without looking bad yourself. Period. Let's show some class and stick to debating his actual stand on abortion and why we disagree with it. We can do that without ever bringing his wife into the discussion.

Thank you for a level headed opinion.

 

[MarineTpartier]

1. Dogs cannot consent to sex, therefore it is irrelevant and flat out stupid to bring them in a discussion of consensual sex.
2. Marrying multiple women has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. "Do you think that people should have the right to have sex with multiple women in their own bedroom" would be a more relevant question, but sodomy laws did not make such a practice illegal.

So I can't figure out what the hell you are talking about. Why would you bring up examples that have nothing to do with the question?

Do you believe the government should be able to regulate what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom? They can certainly regulate how many people you marry, but that has nothing to do with what you do in your own bedroom. They can regulate that you don't have sex with partners that can't consent, but that has nothing to do with what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom.

I beg to differ. My dog humps people all the time, whenever he feels like it. Even if THEY don't consent.
Seriously though, the whole point of my bringing those subjects up is not because I think sodomy should be outlawed. I don't really care, to be honest with you. The point I make is, and you can call it slippery slope if you want, is that legalizing sexual practices that are aimed at liberating a particular kind of people (in this case, gay people) may incite other kinds of people (namely polygamists) to seek equal rights as well. Its called establishing a precedent. I actually learned that from AdamT of all people. It has nothing to do with the actual practice. It has everything to do with the perceived rights of others. If gays are allowed to practice sodomy, why shouldn't polygamists be allowed to marry multiple women? There has actually been one high profile polygamy case already involving the polygamist that had the TV show.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/us/12polygamy.html
Utah has also seen many polygamy cases pop up. Like I say, I don't care about the sodomy thing. I just wonder what the courts will say to polygamists when they come forward and say no fair.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

To my fellow liberals: the abortion his wife had is a losing issue for us(even if it was a real issue). You cannot go there without looking bad yourself. Period. Let's show some class and stick to debating his actual stand on abortion and why we disagree with it. We can do that without ever bringing his wife into the discussion.

I am on the opposite side of it. When a candidate has in the past objected to medical reasons for late term abortions (induced labor included) and called them "phony" right after his own wife (who made her medical history public) had such a procedure, I think it shows just how hypocritical the candidate is.

If the excuse from his supporters is that he would allow those procedures NOW....well, he is on record as speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

 

[Zyphlin]

Um, Karen objected to the injection of pitocin precisely because she knew it would induce the labor, she wanted to stop the labor.

I'm sorry, your quote and source gives absolutely no insight as to why her objections were there. It just as well could've been that rather than speeding the labor up she'd hope there'd still be a way to stop the labor. It could've been an irrational belief that speeding the baby up would've caused it more harm than if it came at a normal speed, or that she wasn't actually fully in labor. However, what your source DOES indicate is that she was already IN LABOR prior to being administered pitocin so there's no way that the pitocin could've induced the labor. You can't take something in the future to cause what happened in the past to occur.

The doctors did not want to stop the labor, they knew it would be fatal for both mother and child.

What's that. They didn't want to stop the labor? But here I thought you've been saying they were trying to induce it. I'm confused...was labor occuring or was it not when the pitocin was given? I've been saying it already was but you keep trying to claim it was induced by the pitocin.

Karen relented, agreed to the pitocin injection. It was an induced labor, antibiotics do not induce labor, pitocin DOES induce labor, it is used in these situations for that purpose.

The Labor had begun PRIOR to the pitocin being administered though. Your own link backs that up. EVERY legitimate link on this has backed that up.

As to your wonderful "Think Progress" post, I'll refer back to the far more non-partisan "On the Issues" site. I will also point out that, not surprising given your absolutely abyssmal ability to counter anything I've said thus far, that you continue to misconstrue "health problems" as being against abortion in the case of the womans life being in mortal danger.

Santorum is against allowing abortions to be legal in the case of "health problems" for the mother because "health problems" is an extremely broad notion that can include everything up to things like the mother having depression over the notion of being pregnant in some cases. HOWEVER, he has shown to be okay with its legalization in cases where the woman's life is in MORTAL DANGER.

In the case of his wife, she was in Mortal Danger. So even if we accept your premise, which is wrong and simply untrue, he would still not be hypocritically okay with an abortion for his wife that he wouldn't allow other women because he's fine with their legalization in the case of mortal danger to the womans life.

But its okay, I'm sure in typical fashion you're ignore what I actually SAY again and post some more emotioanal trap about "phony" health exceptions.