Rick Santorum: Rape Victims Should 'Make The Best Out Of A Bad Situation'

[DontBeStupid]

Being a man, I can never fully know the pain and anguish of rape or incest. But a baby conceived even in the most horrendous manner is still as innocent as any other. Whatever the circumstances, it is not the fault of the newly conceived life. I believe that we as a society should be very careful about terminating life at any point, I am not sure we should go down that road. I am not sure the rights of the mother outweigh those of the unborn; a child that is killed after birth is deemed a murder, why should the physical act of birth change the right to live for that child?

Because 7 months prior to birth, it's not a child.

Biology 101.

 

[Wiseacre]

Being a man, I can never fully know the pain and anguish of rape or incest. But a baby conceived even in the most horrendous manner is still as innocent as any other. Whatever the circumstances, it is not the fault of the newly conceived life. I believe that we as a society should be very careful about terminating life at any point, I am not sure we should go down that road. I am not sure the rights of the mother outweigh those of the unborn; a child that is killed after birth is deemed a murder, why should the physical act of birth change the right to live for that child?

Because 7 months prior to birth, it's not a child.

Biology 101.

A rose by any other name; I don't care what you call it, the issue is whether it has a right to live. Once conceived, it has a future as a human being. To extinguish that future prior to birth is not much different from murdering it afterwards; a new life is gone. I am not sure we should allow that to happen.

 

[Jarhead]

Being a man, I can never fully know the pain and anguish of rape or incest. But a baby conceived even in the most horrendous manner is still as innocent as any other. Whatever the circumstances, it is not the fault of the newly conceived life. I believe that we as a society should be very careful about terminating life at any point, I am not sure we should go down that road. I am not sure the rights of the mother outweigh those of the unborn; a child that is killed after birth is deemed a murder, why should the physical act of birth change the right to live for that child?

Because 7 months prior to birth, it's not a child.

Biology 101.

it requires human blood chock full of oxygen and antibodies to continue living.

Other than a living human being, what other living OR non living object requires that?

Graduate level biology

 

[JakeStarkey]

God did not approve this message

Rick Santorum On Opposition To Abortion In Cases Of Rape: 'Make The Best Out Of A Bad Situation'

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum explained his opposition to abortion even in cases of rape during an interview Friday, saying that women who face such circumstances should "make the best out of a bad situation."

Asked by CNN's Piers Morgan what he would do if his own daughter approached him, begging for an abortion after having been raped, Santorum explained that he would counsel her to "accept this horribly created" baby, because it was still a gift from God, even if given in a "broken" way.

"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 she doesn't, it will always be her child, and she will always know that," Santorum said.

 

[jillian]

Plenty of Women have done just that. Had the Kid and Made a good thing out of a bad one. What's wrong with that?

Says the man who will never be impregnated by a rapist.

the vast majority of anti choice activists are men.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Being a man, I can never fully know the pain and anguish of rape or incest. But a baby conceived even in the most horrendous manner is still as innocent as any other. Whatever the circumstances, it is not the fault of the newly conceived life. I believe that we as a society should be very careful about terminating life at any point, I am not sure we should go down that road. I am not sure the rights of the mother outweigh those of the unborn; a child that is killed after birth is deemed a murder, why should the physical act of birth change the right to live for that child?

Because 7 months prior to birth, it's not a child.

Biology 101.

A rose by any other name; I don't care what you call it, the issue is whether it has a right to live. Once conceived, it has a future as a human being. To extinguish that future prior to birth is not much different from murdering it afterwards; a new life is gone. I am not sure we should allow that to happen.

15% - 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Meaning, that once conceived, no, "it" (your choice of words, interesting) does NOT have a future as a human being. It has no future at all.

Yet you want us as a society, to give "it" (your words) more rights than that of the mother.

Interesting.

 

[Rocko]

Of course eyerone thinks it's fringe, but a world without killing babies is a better world IMO.

 

[jillian]

Being a man, I can never fully know the pain and anguish of rape or incest. But a baby conceived even in the most horrendous manner is still as innocent as any other. Whatever the circumstances, it is not the fault of the newly conceived life. I believe that we as a society should be very careful about terminating life at any point, I am not sure we should go down that road. I am not sure the rights of the mother outweigh those of the unborn; a child that is killed after birth is deemed a murder, why should the physical act of birth change the right to live for that child?

Because 7 months prior to birth, it's not a child.

Biology 101.

it requires human blood chock full of oxygen and antibodies to continue living.

Other than a living human being, what other living OR non living object requires that?

Graduate level biology

we devalue "life" all the time. the issue is not whether the cells are living, but whether the government should intervene to protect those cells over the will of the woman. and, if government *should* step in at some point, then at *what* point?

*That* is what was decided, largely, by Roe v Wade.

 

[Katzndogz]

This guy is out of his mind.

I suppose the progressive problem is 'obsess over your problems until your death.'

No don't solve the problems obsess over them..... We will be a better nation then.

The problem is solved. Women have the right to end that pregnancy. Do I PERSONALLY agree with abortion when said woman has been irresponsible? No. Rape? Yes. Incest? God yes.

I just don't think that people realize what being raped does to a woman. It produces lifetime scars.

The difference is, the woman is still alive and retains the opportunity to overcome her tragedy. The unborn child has no opportunity. And, I fully understand how traumatic rape is, especially violent rape. My first impulse is to agree with abortion in that situation. Contemplation of facts doesn't lend itself to across the board abortion. After all, no matter how badly the injury from rape is, we don't drag in some random man off the street who is perfectly innocent and punish him for the rape. This innocent man doesn't get the death penalty because it's not the woman's fault. Our system of justice demands that the person who has committed the wrongful act be punished. Automatically excluding the child.

 

[KSoze]

I disagree with Santorum on this particular issue. I think a woman that is raped should have the right to have an abortion. It was unlawfully put into her body without her will. The child is going to one day ask who their father is and she'll have to explain that. In some ways it will be a constant reminder of the rape.

At the same time I'll play devil's advocate as I am pro-life in most cases.
We can't be cruel to animals and we can't destroy the environment any way we see fit. This many times involves the government. Why is a "fetus" different?
Where is a fetus on the food chain? Below plants and animals?

 

[Decepticon]

 

[Katzndogz]

Some women do!

 

[Wiseacre]

Because 7 months prior to birth, it's not a child.

Biology 101.

A rose by any other name; I don't care what you call it, the issue is whether it has a right to live. Once conceived, it has a future as a human being. To extinguish that future prior to birth is not much different from murdering it afterwards; a new life is gone. I am not sure we should allow that to happen.

15% - 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Meaning, that once conceived, no, "it" (your choice of words, interesting) does NOT have a future as a human being. It has no future at all.

Yet you want us as a society, to give "it" (your words) more rights than that of the mother.

Interesting.

Actually, "it" was your word not mine. You have dodged the question, a miscarriage is not an an abortion, what has that got to do with the right to life for the unborn? I didn't say anything about more rights than that for the mother, I'm saying equal rights. You seem to be real quick to jump to conclusions.

 

[jillian]

Being a man, I can never fully know the pain and anguish of rape or incest. But a baby conceived even in the most horrendous manner is still as innocent as any other. Whatever the circumstances, it is not the fault of the newly conceived life. I believe that we as a society should be very careful about terminating life at any point, I am not sure we should go down that road. I am not sure the rights of the mother outweigh those of the unborn; a child that is killed after birth is deemed a murder, why should the physical act of birth change the right to live for that child?

Because 7 months prior to birth, it's not a child.

Biology 101.

A rose by any other name; I don't care what you call it, the issue is whether it has a right to live. Once conceived, it has a future as a human being. To extinguish that future prior to birth is not much different from murdering it afterwards; a new life is gone. I am not sure we should allow that to happen.

it is fair to have questions. if you had no questions, you would have no heart. but no one is wise enough to make those decisions for others.... and certainly the government shouldn't be the determinative factor in something so complicated.

 

[DontBeStupid]

A rose by any other name; I don't care what you call it, the issue is whether it has a right to live. Once conceived, it has a future as a human being. To extinguish that future prior to birth is not much different from murdering it afterwards; a new life is gone. I am not sure we should allow that to happen.

15% - 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Meaning, that once conceived, no, "it" (your choice of words, interesting) does NOT have a future as a human being. It has no future at all.

Yet you want us as a society, to give "it" (your words) more rights than that of the mother.

Interesting.

Actually, "it" was your word not mine. You have dodged the question, a miscarriage is not an an abortion, what has that got to do with the right to life for the unborn? I didn't say anything about more rights than that for the mother, I'm saying equal rights. You seem to be real quick to jump to conclusions.

I can call it an "it" because I think that's what it is. You calling it that while at the same time trying to make a case it is on par with a woman ... well, rather telling.

A miscarriage is not an abortion, yes, and I never said it was. But claiming that a zygote "once conceived ... has a future as a human being" is simply not true. It might have no future at all, which happens almost 20% of the time. Yet you want us to treat ALL zygotes as if they ALL have a future (equal protection under the law) and that this supposed future trumps the decisions of an adult woman.

And the best part, you don't see how this is disrespectful to women? You get to make up your own mind about this issue and you get to choose how to act in regards to this issue, yet you don't want women to be able to do the same.

While you compare them to something you call "it".

Dude ... come on.

 

[paulitician]

Oh Boo Hoo for you. Stop being a criminal and you wont get raped in Prison anymore. Another Felon Democratic supporter. Yikes!

 

[DontBeStupid]

Oh Boo Hoo for you. Stop being a criminal and you wont get raped in Prison anymore. Another Felon Democratic supporter. Yikes!

I must spread the rep around before I can negative rep this disgusting, insulting, degrading piece of crap Pauli calls a post.

 

[Wiseacre]

Because 7 months prior to birth, it's not a child.

Biology 101.

A rose by any other name; I don't care what you call it, the issue is whether it has a right to live. Once conceived, it has a future as a human being. To extinguish that future prior to birth is not much different from murdering it afterwards; a new life is gone. I am not sure we should allow that to happen.

it is fair to have questions. if you had no questions, you would have no heart. but no one is wise enough to make those decisions for others.... and certainly the government shouldn't be the determinative factor in something so complicated.

Understood; but should there be some decisions for which we do not allow anyone to make for themselves?

 

[DontBeStupid]

A rose by any other name; I don't care what you call it, the issue is whether it has a right to live. Once conceived, it has a future as a human being. To extinguish that future prior to birth is not much different from murdering it afterwards; a new life is gone. I am not sure we should allow that to happen.

it is fair to have questions. if you had no questions, you would have no heart. but no one is wise enough to make those decisions for others.... and certainly the government shouldn't be the determinative factor in something so complicated.

Understood; but should there be some decisions for which we do not allow anyone to make for themselves?

Obviously yes. But the only times we do that is when another person can be harmed by that decision.

 

[Wiseacre]

15% - 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Meaning, that once conceived, no, "it" (your choice of words, interesting) does NOT have a future as a human being. It has no future at all.

Yet you want us as a society, to give "it" (your words) more rights than that of the mother.

Interesting.

Actually, "it" was your word not mine. You have dodged the question, a miscarriage is not an an abortion, what has that got to do with the right to life for the unborn? I didn't say anything about more rights than that for the mother, I'm saying equal rights. You seem to be real quick to jump to conclusions.

I can call it an "it" because I think that's what it is. You calling it that while at the same time trying to make a case it is on par with a woman ... well, rather telling.

A miscarriage is not an abortion, yes, and I never said it was. But claiming that a zygote "once conceived ... has a future as a human being" is simply not true. It might have no future at all, which happens almost 20% of the time. Yet you want us to treat ALL zygotes as if they ALL have a future (equal protection under the law) and that this supposed future trumps the decisions of an adult woman.

And the best part, you don't see how this is disrespectful to women? You get to make up your own mind about this issue and you get to choose how to act in regards to this issue, yet you don't want women to be able to do the same.

While you compare them to something you call "it".

Dude ... come on.

You are not showing much respect to unborn children either. They don't have any rights at all in your book. You can play wordgames all you want, too bad you can't address the real issue - why should it be legal to extinguish life that has yet to be born?