Intro: "Standing steadfast as the most socially right-wing candidate in the GOP presidential field, Rick Santorum has repeatedly touted his extreme anti-choice position, which dictates that abortion should be uniformly illegal, even in cases of rape or incest."
Rick Santorum has emerged as the Evangelicals' candidate in the GOP primaries. (photo: Eric Gay/AP)
Santorum to Rape Victims: 'Make the Best Out of a Bad Situation'
24 January 12
tanding steadfast as the most socially right-wing candidate in the GOP presidential field, Rick Santorum has repeatedly touted his extreme anti-choice position, which dictates that abortion should be uniformly illegal, even in cases of rape or incest. He even suggested that physicians who provide abortions to such victims should be criminally charged.
Last Friday, CNN's Piers Morgan asked Santorum to clarify his reasoning behind such a callous position. Insisting that "it's not a matter of religious values," Santorum explained that sexual assault victims should "accept this horribly created" pregnancy because it is "nevertheless a gift in a very broken way" and that, when it comes down to it, a victim just has "to make the best out of a bad situation":
Santorum: Well, 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. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn't, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I've always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created - in the sense of rape - but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can't think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.
The problem with Santorum's sense of humanity is that it doesn't seem to extend to the victim. The emotional and physical trauma endured during and after a sexual assault often leaves a woman feeling robbed of any control over her own body and welfare. Robbing a woman of the choice to decide what to do with such "horribly created" consequences only contributes to the victim's trauma.
What's more, Santorum's argument forces a woman in these circumstances to share his religious beliefs and "accept what God has given to [her.]" A woman may very well share his belief and decide to carry the pregnancy to the term, but the fundamental point is that that should be her choice - not the government's, and certainly not Santorum's.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
And because it's purely religious, not grounded in any sensible understanding of the law, this "Dick" calls the fetus "a son or daughter," "a child" that would be killed. Again, look at the law...what a "dick!"
This guy couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag, let alone be president...and what the hell is he doing as a senator?????
I can't waste another breath on this rabid, misogynistic "thing" we call a human. Not!
But really...how in the WORLD did he ever get to be a senator in the first place, albeit now voted out? Oh, wait...I forgot...REPUBL ICAN...far right...yada yada. And the beat goes on and on and on.
non-sensible, cognitively impaired misogynist and has no place in politics as a Senator and POTUS candidate but your protests would be more effective if you would lose obscenities (ie), ]dick}.
It brings you down to a level where your very cogent remarks are less effective than if you spoke with more dignity and less hysteria and animosity. I share your sentiments about his unreflectve chauvinism, his opportunistic playing on the "tea party" idealogue and his use of "religiosity bantering" which has no place in government no matter how much these "tea bag" people want to merge church and state. Santorium is a rabid misogynistict but don't call any human being a "thing" because it is both semantically and spiritually wrong which weakens your argument.
They want TOTAL control over the UPPITY women.
I think they HATE to see that women are now in position of power, take charge of their bodies, and have children when they want, married or not. This drive them crazy. Their puritanical thinking can't stand it.
We MUST be pushed back in a subservient position.
Women are born to SERVE men, in their warped thinking. Boy ARE THEY WRONG.
IN NOVEMBER WE NEED TO THROW ALL THE RELIGIOUS FANATICS OUT OF ANY POSITION OF GOVERNMENT. ( men OR women)
That should be possible, for "they" say that more women, than men, VOTE. So LET'S GO LADIES.
with this hypocritical, religiosity tea party idealogue. They actually want to move women backward in time. Well, it's time for women who value their autonomy to demand that Rick Santorium and his ilk get out of politics if they think they are going to take away our hard-earned right to choose and the law that protects our liberty to be in control of our bodies, minds, and our future!
Santorum, on a totally different road than the Catholic progessives across the country and in CTA, who awarded their annual award to the nun who o.k.ed a necessary abortion and was then kicked out of her job and church, and all other neo-con, phony baloney Christians/evan gelicals, the crowd who consider woman nothing more than breeding machines and pew filler-uppers, are anything but humanitarian.
The answer is hell no, he would not, and did not. His wife had an abortion some time back. See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/16/985393/-Rick-Santorum-is-against-abortion-for-any-reason,-with-one-exception-. Of course, it was OK for her, she was an exception to his rule for every other woman.
Santorum is a hypocrite as well as a sanctimonious fool. He needs to crawl back under his rock and stay there.
Delving into the mysteries of the Santorium psyche, I wonder: Does he suffer such turmoil over the loss of that child that he is moved to act that remorse out in the public arena by proclaiming legislation for others? If so, he needs to develop a deeper internal connection to the God of his understanding to be able to hold and accept his personal decision in the light of this deep paradox that occurred in his own life. His acting out suggests his inability to deal with the deep conundrums of Life. Perhaps he thinks along these lines: If he cannot fully forgive/accept himself, how could a “lesser” person without staunch beliefs?
Also, I do not know the reason or circumstances of his wive's abortion and if it was her choice or theirs> Does anyone on the Post know why there was an abortion?
I do not doubt Joe Klein
.
I can't stand Santorum, as you noticed from my earlier comments. But I will not lie. That is for republicans.
Sooner or later ideologies of *all* kinds will have to be put away so that real practical problem-solving can begin. The sooner the better, I say.
Your comment above is a defining example of false equivalency, the kind of hard right bone-headedness that has removed the moral/ethical secular canon we used to label "shared values" from any consideration in the public presentation of ideas or opinions, especially in the media as it pertains to public policy, and even the existence of fact.
Bluntly stated, your entitled to your cockamamie, Bible-driven point of view, but it is an affront to long-held concepts of what is right, legal, fair and just in this constitutional society, where separation of church and state, and its court-tested offshoots, are a bedrock principle, notwithstanding the likes of you and Santorum.
I have no patience for your pseudo-academic sophistry. Either you're a right wing troll sent here to break stones, or you're what I previously labeled you...a Bible thumper with a vocabulary. Either way, the future of this country is at stake, and my invective is appropriate for the likes of you. I'm not interested in "understanding" someone like Santorum, I'm interested in sending him back to the fanatical obscurity where he belongs.
I state below that I unequivocally disagree with Santorum. The premise of his argument is wrong and therefore he is wrong. I simply wanted to show that no matter how wrong he is, his reasoning is flawless. It's those other sanctimonious blowhards who start from the same false premise and then go on to prove that they are wrong. They blow their whole argument to shreds by giving choice to women in those exceptions. If one believes that life begins at conception, is therefore a person deserving of equal protection under the law, then it seems to me no one can allow for exceptions. Furthermore, if, according to these self-righteous people the fetus is God's child or his will, too, (warning to all who want to jump me: I DON"T BELIEVE THIS MALARKEY ONE BIT!) then providing a woman with the choice to end a pregnancy because of rape or incest or her life is threatened by it, if nothing else proves that they believe that there are two classes of fetuses: those who are innocent (whatever that means) persons loved by their God "murdered" by abortionists and those fetuses that are not persons at all and therefore can be aborted. Their idiotic logic distinguishes two different outcomes from the same biological event. That distinction amply demonstrates they are fools spewing nonsense to an audience that fears free thought.
Santorum is wrong from the start because he assumes that what he believes is therefore fact and we all know that beliefs are just beleifs.
Her body is VIOLENTLY INVADED, and you would have to be beyond Mother Teresa saintly to want to see the result of the attack on you, daily.
A poor innocent child will most certainly suffer too.
Few men can understand what a woman would feel. Most of us are physically weaker than a man.
Life is tough and we try to be strong and competent, so to be reminded daily that you were NOT able to defend your own body must be an awful experience.
Since men have no way of understanding, they should butt out and definitely can the ideology crap. That is right wing religious blather.
and government. STAY THE HELL OUT OF OUR LIVES AND BODIES
The republicans constantly tell us that government is too big... They will make it BIGGER, by interfering in women's private business,
Get out of our bedrooms, and leave our bodies, and decisions about them to us.
And Andrew is wrong. I am certainly glad he has a loving relationship with his mother.
I, on the other hand have sometime been ahead of my time. I started out that way.
My parents married. because I was on the way. I think they were in love at the time, but if they'd had more time to develope their relatinship. They might not have married.
They never should have. I loved both my mother and father, and they loved me, but they were wrong together, and divorced after 20 difficult years.
Yeah, I agree with Trish42. All those men that rape, hey, their "gods" in Santorum/luny-christo-ri ght world. And I'll add, all the womens who get pregnant from said "gods" rapes, are "Marys" I guess. That would explain these luny-christo-ri ghts treating women like barn animals...
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!
our future depends on it
else's pregnancy. Keep his nose out of other peoples uterus. How many of these kids conceived this way has he adopted?
Why can't people mind their own business. I think that his taking a dead baby home so the other kids could see it is about the cruelest thing he could have done to them. It is something out of a horror movie, and a nightmare maker. He certainly did not have any respect for that child. It was a human not a doll. Remember those kids pick out your nursing home. This is one warped dude and has no place trying to lead a nation.
I can: seeing Rick Santorum elected to any public office whatsoever, never mind the presidency.
And if God is also speaking to Bachmann, or Mit , or Newt and saying different (or the same) things , why would anyone believe what he is 'whispering in your ear??'
SWantorum was a pig when a Senator and it hasn't changed. only now he is dragging God and Catholics down with him
and inverse perversion in women-haters.
He often sounds like he has a stone for a heart and shite for brains. These remarks are no exception to his ongoing pious idiocy.
Mr. Santorum if you are PRO LIFE support life from the womb to the tomb!
Watching this circus called the Republican Debates is nauseating and migraine producing.
Scary stuff!!!!
What a sanctimonious ass Santorum is.
Yet from the party who condemns as many people to peasant, drone or slave status as possible to enhance the bottom line of the "haves" without any recourse to benefits, care, treatment or even compassion, this is the very medievalist society they are trying to re-establish and Sanitary-odium is a poster-boy for such degree of mean-spirited and blinkered posturing.
I wouldn't even dignify this article -which needs to be shouted from the rooftops- with a post if it weren't so representative of a deeply anti-democratic and de-humanized element in the voting -yes, voting- population that has enough numbers to get this ill-conceived son of a dumpster on any ballot.
They want to "Occupy" your uterus and refuse to even acknowledge that it takes two (or more) to create poverty and irresponsibilit y.
What a smug, patronizing piece of reactionary pap! Try telling the billions of religiously driven conceived then abandoned children in the world including the USA, who don't even make it to one year old and if they do, would face a miserable life in increasingly de-humanizing societies including this one. Your God is really helping them along isn't he??!!
Or how 'bout those who will defend the fetus in a womb even unto murder but will happily send the healthy slightly matured fully formed product thereof to war as cannon-fodder.
ALL life is sacred (and not just human) and our species are allegedly given choices whether to reproduce or not but the victim of rape is given none (unless you figger "God told the rapist to do it!).
I've a distinct feeling I'm wasting my time here o' wise one but I have-ta try.
I was in Brazil years ago, at the same time as the "saintly" Pope John Poul II.
I was so furious , that I wanted to kick in the TV sceen, when I heard him say: "Be fruitful and Multiply"???
In a country where there were so many little ragged kids begging, and getting into trouble. They grew up to be REAL criminals, for they were uncared for and illiterate.
At times they were rounded up and put.....Heaven knows where?
So much for a caring God and human beings as sacred to God... Religious jerks are BAD FOR CHILDERN AND OTHER LIVING THINGS.
Why does your rant sound so familiar? Oh, that's right, because you think you speak for God, similar to Santorum; or like Bush Jr., mildly put, the smirking incompetant? Religious fanatics seem so cocksure they have IT down that their blind faith will propel them to absurd, & yes, inhumane excesses. To quote a poster here named "Buddha": "Typical GOP, concern for a 'person' begins at conception but ends at birth." Indeed, & the Iraq War is an obvious example w/ "prolifers" supporting it, & in turn the inevitable suffering & deaths of those beyond birth. That's some high-falutin "morality." And in a show of "religious piousness" you imply to support Santorum's position because it's "God's Will"? Meanwhile reality goes on concerning the victim's rights & individual situation. But you seem to think you have a monopoly on understanding the meaning of life, while in reality there's some degree of various interpretations . Meanwhile, who's the "one true god"? God? Zeus? Lono? Krishna? Etc.? Maybe an alchoholic in a drunken stupor has seen the "real god", i.e., a Pink Elephant.
What we cannot conclude is that anyone who purports to know and announce God's will is telling the truth. If an almighty, omnipotent, ubiquitous allows both rapes and abortions, all we can conclude is that God allows them and allows us to make our own decisions.
I know in some Christian sects you are taught that people can't be saved or enter heaven unless they embrace your specific sect of Christianity. Again it is your right to believe that, however you don't have the right to try to convert others through boisterous sidewalk demonstration of your religious beliefs. While certainly you have the right to pray, but we have the right to live in peace & quite. I'm sure your prayer can be heard just as well if they are performed in silence. As far as I'm concerned you can spend every minute of every day in prayer as long as you do it in silence when you are not within the walls of your home or Church.
It's time the evangelical let people live their live as they will. Their soul is not your business. As adults they have the right to make their own decisions regardless of your opinion or religious belief.
You also have no right to impose your religion by holding our taxes hostage. We don't get to choose what our taxes can be used for. But if we did I'd forbid them it to be used for war, human rights abusers, military foreign aid,etc. It's hypocritical to protect the unborn but support killing of millions in war, especially war for profit
God wants men who neither support nor physically nurture (and change diapers and get up four times in the middle of the night etc.) to be forced to have vasectomies! (if you can presume, so can I......)
So like the man says, although abortions aren't always desirable, sometimes they are necessary when you have to make the best out of a bad situation. That's what "the lesser of two evils" means.
Sandusky for week.
That bag of bones is an ABSOLUTE MENTAL CASE! ...And he wants to be US President!? He belongs at the The North Infirmary Command on Riker's Island!
This absolute INSANE TURD as my sister calls him has just given me a relapse of gastroenteritis and diarrhoea! Sorry, but the constitutionaö intestinal fortitude of my system just cannot handle RICK SANTORUM¨ Excuse me, I have gotta go NOW!
Your vague reference to "Judicious" is a bit late for the victim, innit? And it is deeply flawed as many examples exist to illustrate, especially in the South when white males regularly fathered babies with their slaves and then cast them from their area of birth.
Or in fundamentalist Muslim areas where a woman can be "honorably" killed for "Allowing" herself to be raped.
Vaginal mutilation OK -a more extreme form?
Your presumption on the beliefs and compassion of others is unbelievable. You have just confirmed that any exchange with you is a waste of energy.
By the way, would you kindly refer me to a right-wing site that isn't carefully screened where I can gain unfettered access and air my opposing views wildly and irrationally like you do on RSN? I really want to know.
Opposing views are welcome and often illuminating; but yours are declaimed from on high with a blind and irrational conviction which is bordering on the fanatical and demonstrates a mentality utterly closed to reason. or any hope of illumination.
We're bloody weary of people like you (mostly men) passing judgment on our lack of compassion for a handful of immature cells, and refusing to acknowledge their own lack of compassion for those already born.
Such demonstrations of your fellow conservatives' compassion for human life abound: in their support of weapons over victims; in their zeal for war that sends American youth to their deaths so the 1% can rake in more quarterly profits; in their insistence that everyone worship *their* Judeo-Christian god, or else...; in their glee to blame everything that's wrong about this country on those less fortunate; on their egregious lack of support for public education, safety and health for both the living and the unborn; in their blind refusal to acknowledge human-caused climate change — and on and on. If you had an ounce of true compassion, you would recognize the hypocrisy.
Medical decisions are between the patient & MD its none of there business. Women are taxpayers to.
If life begin with the division of cells rather than the ability to survive outside the womb than cancer cell are life as well. So cancer should be left so what if it kills you or in the case of prostrate prevent sexual function its a living cell therefore can't be removed or chemically killed.
Quite frankly no one has the right to impose their will on another person except a parent on their minor children. Men have no right to say how a women they impregnate deals with the situation unless they sign an irrevocable contract to support & acknowledge the child forever than & only then should he any rights in the matter.
If these pro lifer cared so much about life why are they continually instigating war sending our children off to war based on lies, misrepresentati on, & fabrication to be killed, maimed and kill others.
If we get a choice on how are taxes are spent I say no more war Fund a Department of Peace instead. As long as our world is run the male way we will never have peace. Its time to clip their wings. We no longer need them to provide the roof over our head or put food on the table. Most of us do that for ourselves. Its time to stop playing by their rules Starting with control of our bodies.
Regarding your suggestion that we "try to draw a rational conclusion"; I suggest you make a greater effor to post a rational comment. What on earth are you talking about when you say "Try taking the sole concept of what the life of a human person means?" and were did you get the ridiculous notion that a human person is not a human being? We are human beings. Read "Being and Time" by Heidegger to grasp the concept of human being. To be a human being is to be in the process of evolving. Being is a verb. To be a human person is to be static. Person is a noun. Santorium and you seem to fit in this category. He's not only static in his thought process, he is regressive. He wants the country to move backwards rather than forward. His intent is for women to go back to a time when women were dependent on men, No way, Jose! Women of today are too well-informed and strong to allow it.
Women will be able to rise to power in the USA when the people finally realize that after the Revolution, nothing changed, it was business as usual just without George III, family hereditary obligations & titles.
The Constitution was written by white, wealthy, literate,land owner, men for themselves. The people have been brainwashed to believe we have a choice, when it is they who determine who & what we have to choose from.
To give meaning to our Founding Documents we need regime change, now. Replacing both ruling parties starting with the 2012 elections before they eliminate the rest of our rights. How about a real Democracy?
Sarah Palin, on the other hand is NOT qualified, not because she is a woman or "bimbo"(your chauvinism is apparent with your choice of words here) but because her intelligence, leadership qualities and understanding of the constitution, and lack of education and insight. which is similar to Santorium. They are both hypocritical, inauthentic and dangerous to our democracy. If you are going to "give meaning to our Founding Documents" and the separation of church and state, and feministic ideas; DON'T refer to women as sexual objects or as subservient to their husbands or in soap opera terms such as "wronged wife who stood by her man". I know Hillary Clinton and she is a brilliant, powerful woman who had her reasons for staying with Bill which you assume you understand but YOU DO NOT!
Chauvinists tend to put women in boxes and label them them in accordance with their assumptions which are generally wrong. Don't do that!
Ha Ha. I agree with what you wrote. In general I think women would do a good job of being leaders, but of course. there are some exceptions, as you mentioned. you just forgot a very bad specimen....Mar garet Thatcher.
I'm perfectly comfortable with people who think like Santorum and Gingrich--I exclude Romney, since I believe he's a cynical phony, not a true hard right ideologue--if they remain in the private background, living whatever lives they choose in obscurity, where they can't impose their twisted reactionary views on the rest of us. After all, "this is a free country".
However, when they end up running for president of the United States, that's a different kettle of fish. The regressive ideology of these guys-- skimming along the surface of much darker strains of race hatred, anti-gay bigotry, perpetual war, profligate military spending, rationalized gun violence and general contempt for anyone who can think critically about issues that directly effect their lives, let alone challenge the authority or assumed wisdom of elected officials--may be acceptable at the local level, say in White Arizona or Mississippi, but not on the national stage, not when it might impact all of us. Sell this regressive trash-talk somewhere else.
The abortion is carried out and the soul goes to wait for another line to join.
We still have a victim who should be able to decide whether or not to have that forced soul as her own.
That decision should always be hers.
We appear to be unique in the universe and once born on this Earth should have the right to live our time here as we wish. Especially free from forced decisions by religious sects.
abortionists under unsanitary conditions, resulting in the death of the mother. If one was fortunate there was a local DR. who would prescribe a D&C for the mother and help the mother. People knew about him but keep their mouths shut because they felt he was providing a service to the community. All this crap talk about ending abortion is just that crap. Read the paper, how many babies have been found in dumpsters, in closets, trunks of cars etc. This is better? You cannot not legislate morality, we tried with Prohibition and it was a dismal failure that took untold lives and only served to make a few very rich bootleggers. The law against abortion didn't work before and it won't work now. Think of all the ways that profits could be made from it. New millionaires from baby killing.
That's quite a book recommendation. So, it requires, shall I say, some fundamentalist (i.e., fanatical) thinking or "thinking"? And we're supposed to leave everything else at the door, i.e., we're not allowed to question & criticize theology? This post is as vague & antiquated as your previous ones. "Original thinking"? I suggest not using that term since you're apparently blinded by ancient, abstract assumptions created by earlier humans w/in a given level of development prioritizing blind faith over original thinking. Now, I'll recommend some things to you: "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, the documentary, "Religulous" by Bill Maher (although this could be the only thing I agree w/ him on), & I refer to my previous post re. who the "true god" could be, e.g., an alchoholic in a drunken stupor who just may have seen him/her/it, (Do you really know if "God" has a gender?), i.e, a Pink Elephant.
Seems as though he took the "c" out of care and out of his name.
As a former Catholic, I have many negative views of the church's position on many different issues affecting women's lives. Some same positions exist outside religious ideologies. Regan was hardly a church-goer, but he was opposed to abortion. And clearly, many of these positions are narrowly defined to suit the pontificator. (Romney & Gingrich).
The greater issue is women's reproductive *health* -- the right to care and compassion for unrequested consequences. I didn't ever see anyone refer to incest which is rape of a particularly heinous kind. Should we ask someone who may be only a very young child to maintain a pregnancy? Have we considered the psychological and potential genetic damage incest has on the victims - mother and child?
Reminds me of a song called Makes Good Sense/Cheryl Wheeler done during Newt's reign of terror:
"Now if some pretty little lady gets herself knocked up good
She'll have to have that baby just because we think she should
In who's sick mind did it ever occur
That a choice like that should be up to her
They're a godless bunch, a cross we bear
But as soon as that little tike draws air
We can wash our hands of the whole affair
Makes good sense to me"
Santorum wants to be the new Mullah of the Tea-liban!
AND he wants to impose "Mosaic law" on everybody!
Don't believe me? Read Leviticus!
Well said! But isn't it heartening that this matter has attracted well over 100 quotes and nary a one agrees with Santorum or Joeconserve?
Where the Hell did you get that one?
And you still haven't answered my question about where on the right I can go to share my opinions, however varying from their rants, without being screened, refused and cut off.
Otherwise I rest my case about any hope of enlightening or progressive (as in mutual understanding) on ANY subject in your case, like most of your ilk.
And while we are at it, why is it mostly males o' the species who do the shoutin', rapine and violence (Thatcher notwithstanding).
Y'know, one of the functions of the American "Indian" Sun Dance is to attempt to suffer the pain and understand what the woman goes through to give birth and give thanks to them for continuing the great circle of life. But they don't rape them or they'd have their goolies whacked off (I've spoken at length about this with many elders and shared the sweat lodge in contemplation thereof: (I'm not nearly tough enough to do the Sun Dance). If a child is born to a tribe (or should I say "was:") it was nurtured by the whole village and fostered by appointment of the spiritual leader after much debate and consultation.
What do the likes of Santorum have to offer but let the unwanted wander unnoticed or stick 'em in the forces as cannon fodder, the quicker they expire the better for the economy and God wants it that way.
Really!
Sorry dude, but the pro choice side has a far greater % than the anti choice people. Even a majority of Catholics support abortion.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Santorum
Santorum is an idiot. Enough said.
One might argue that it shouldn't be that way, that a mother should be a mother regardless, but there's only so much one can ask of any human being.
As for giving the child up for adoption--that still entails bearing a child of rape. And as someone whjo has worked in the child welfare system, let me state that foster care and adoption are no picnics either. Sometimnes they work out, but all too often they don't. The best solution is to do everything possible to prevent sexual assault while leaving open the option of terminating a pregnacy which results from rape.
BTW, when he was a senator, Santorum was the Republican running the vile K Street project and was also known by his Republican colleagues as "the dumbest senator in history."
He needs to sit the hell down and shut up.
RSS feed for comments to this post