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

[Stephanie]

All but the most absurd pro-lifers find the concept of forcing a woman to carry the product of rape to conception to be completely reprehensible.

On top of the physical and psychological strain of being sexually assaulted, I can't imagine the physical and psychological strain of forcing a woman to carry a rapist's child.

Only a sadistic fuck would do something like that.

Just where did someone say a woman should be FORCED to carry a child of rape.


I had a friend who didn't abort her child of rape. has a fine young son today...

You're kidding, right?

That's the whole point. Santorum wants to remove a woman's control over her body.

I don't know how much more intrusive government can get then that.

he does not...stop with the bullshit..

 

[Jarhead]

Part of the discussion has evolved to consider the various ramifications of this thread.

Santorum is against all abortion. He is wrong before Man and before God.

In terms of rape, the raped woman decides in conjunction with her doctor, no one else.

and Santorum an others believe otherwise. So?

One, it shows that folks like Rick and those who agree with him suffer from a deeply flawed sense of morality.

Per your opinion

Two, they will never have the votes, so what they believe is immaterial.

Yet you felt the need to comment anyway.

Thanks

 

[Stephanie]

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.

Does it have a beating heart prior to 7 months?

 

[Jarhead]

It is against U.S. Law for the tax payer to pay for it, so how does the tax payer pay for it? Do they pay for it?

No, they do not.

But the debate became heated when the health care law was in....ahem....debate and tere were discussions of abortion and how it is funded.

see, I don't see people on Medicaid, being covered with Health Insurance as paying for abortions if the health car e insurance company has chosen to cover abortions....to me THAT IS A FAR REACH BY THE FAR RIGHT.... forcing the insurance companies to NOT cover something they were ALREADY covering.....

the government funding abortion is different to me and I agree the government should not give any funds to any group, specifically for abortions.

If tax payer funds are used to supplement medicaid then how is it a far reach?

 

[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.

Does it have a beating heart prior to 7 months?

so does a cow fetus.
The real argument is....

Does it require human antibodies to stay alive while in the womb.

For if it does, then it is a living human being....for nothing but a living human being requires human antibodies to stay alive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

yes, such people like Santorum and others are deeply, deeply flawed on this issue.

yes, I will always comment on such deeply flawed statements.

 

[DontBeStupid]

So much focus on the woman, so little on the unborn. Why should a fetus not have the same right to life before birth that it has afterwards? Somebody answer me that one. The circumstances of the conception are obviously not the fetus' fault, and yet many would deny it the right to live if the mother doesn't want it. The mother has the choice to decide if she wants to keep the baby; but the choice to kill is not available after birth, why is it an option before then?

What's so special about the birth process that it means the right to exist is conferred at that time rather than earlier? Just because the baby is now physically separated? Is that a valid enough reason for a death sentence? Let's not beat around the bush here, we're talking about ending a life; born or unborn, there's no real difference.

Bolded has been asked and answered.
My opinion, a zygote does not have the same rights as a full grown adult woman because 20% of the time the zygote never becomes a baby.
Your opinion, I am wrong and a zygote needs to have full rights from conception.

My opinion, a woman can decide for herself her opinion on this issue and act accordingly.
Your opinion, a woman cannot be allowed to decide for herself her own opinion nor act accordingly.

My opinion, a woman who chooses to give birth and not end her pregnancy should be treated positively and given assistance in raising the child, should she need it.
Your opinion, a woman who chooses to give birth and not end her pregnancy should be given no assistance at all by any government organization and be left to fend as best she can. Provided you agree with how she makes those decisions.

Yeah, you really sound like you're all about "the baby" and not just anti-women.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The fetus should not have to be MURDERED because the host was traumatized.

I could understand the fact the mother would not want the baby, however murdering an innocent fetus as a way to forget is absolutely wrong... That's no better than raping another - as a matter of fact its worse considering it's murder...

Honestly I have no idea how one could murder a fetus and feel justified in doing so just because government allows it..

 

[DontBeStupid]

Just where did someone say a woman should be FORCED to carry a child of rape.


I had a friend who didn't abort her child of rape. has a fine young son today...

You're kidding, right?

That's the whole point. Santorum wants to remove a woman's control over her body.

I don't know how much more intrusive government can get then that.

he does not...stop with the bullshit..

Actually, he does. He has also spoken out about not allowing women the right to use contraception of any kind. Including married women.

 

[g5000]

The fetus should not have to be MURDERED because the host was traumatized.

I could understand the fact the mother would not want the baby, however murdering an innocent fetus as a way to forget is absolutely wrong... That's no better than raping another - as a matter of fact its worse considering it's murder...

Honestly I have no idea how one could murder a fetus and feel justified in doing so just because government allows it..

This means you are okay with a rape victim getting an abortion prior to the 9th week after conception. So are most people.

 

[Care4all]

No, they do not.

But the debate became heated when the health care law was in....ahem....debate and tere were discussions of abortion and how it is funded.

see, I don't see people on Medicaid, being covered with Health Insurance as paying for abortions if the health car e insurance company has chosen to cover abortions....to me THAT IS A FAR REACH BY THE FAR RIGHT.... forcing the insurance companies to NOT cover something they were ALREADY covering.....

the government funding abortion is different to me and I agree the government should not give any funds to any group, specifically for abortions.

If tax payer funds are used to supplement medicaid then how is it a far reach?

i don't know about your state but in my state and in massachusetts, medicare is Blue cross blue shield in massachusetts and here it is Anthem blue cross blue shield,

The State looked at all health care group policies offered and chose one to meet their need to cover their medicaid group.... ALL of the policies that they had to choose from with pretty good health care coverages include abortion coverage with restrictions..... the gvt did not ask for abortions to be covered nor did they have a choice in it....it was a decision of the health care insurance companies.....

the republicans throwing a tizzy over the insurance company's choice for it being part of the policy and forcing them to create an insurance policy without that coverage is a far reach...and they are paying the same amount for it....no savings by forcing them to take it out....that's ridiculous....sorry but it is.....imo.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The fetus should not have to be MURDERED because the host was traumatized.

I could understand the fact the mother would not want the baby, however murdering an innocent fetus as a way to forget is absolutely wrong... That's no better than raping another - as a matter of fact its worse considering it's murder...

Honestly I have no idea how one could murder a fetus and feel justified in doing so just because government allows it..

It's only murder if it's illegal and a person.

 

[Seawytch]

You're kidding, right?

That's the whole point. Santorum wants to remove a woman's control over her body.

I don't know how much more intrusive government can get then that.

he does not...stop with the bullshit..

Actually, he does. He has also spoken out about not allowing women the right to use contraception of any kind. Including married women.

Yes he has. Now, it is unlikely that he would be able to do the things he WANTS to do, but the fact that he wants to do them is still pretty disturbing.

 

[Jarhead]

see, I don't see people on Medicaid, being covered with Health Insurance as paying for abortions if the health car e insurance company has chosen to cover abortions....to me THAT IS A FAR REACH BY THE FAR RIGHT.... forcing the insurance companies to NOT cover something they were ALREADY covering.....

the government funding abortion is different to me and I agree the government should not give any funds to any group, specifically for abortions.

If tax payer funds are used to supplement medicaid then how is it a far reach?

i don't know about your state but in my state and in massachusetts, medicare is Blue cross blue shield in massachusetts and here it is Anthem blue cross blue shield,

The State looked at all health care group policies offered and chose one to meet their need to cover their medicaid group.... ALL of the policies that they had to choose from with pretty good health care coverages include abortion coverage with restrictions..... the gvt did not ask for abortions to be covered nor did they have a choice in it....it was a decision of the health care insurance companies.....

the republicans throwing a tizzy over the insurance company's choice for it being part of the policy and forcing them to create an insurance policy without that coverage is a far reach...and they are paying the same amount for it....no savings by forcing them to take it out....that's ridiculous....sorry but it is.....imo.

Hey...you are a mod.

Apparently Jakey is not happy that I broke the rules and added to his quote when I inserted responses to his statements...I did it in a different color font and bolded it...making it clear that it was not "changing" his post.

But, alas, the child PM'ed me whining that I broke the rules and ordered me to never do it again.

Did I break the rules? I see it done all the time.

 

[Jarhead]

and Santorum an others believe otherwise. So?

One, it shows that folks like Rick and those who agree with him suffer from a deeply flawed sense of morality.

Per your opinion

Two, they will never have the votes, so what they believe is immaterial.

Yet you felt the need to comment anyway.

Thanks

here is what I did.
Jakey...dont get all flustered now that I am showing it off.....

 

[Jarhead]

One, it shows that folks like Rick and those who agree with him suffer from a deeply flawed sense of morality.

Per your opinion

Two, they will never have the votes, so what they believe is immaterial.

Yet you felt the need to comment anyway.

Thanks

here is what I did.
Jakey...dont get all flustered now that I am showing it off.....

One more time...see what I did?
Jakley...calm down....life is too short.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The fetus should not have to be MURDERED because the host was traumatized.

I could understand the fact the mother would not want the baby, however murdering an innocent fetus as a way to forget is absolutely wrong... That's no better than raping another - as a matter of fact its worse considering it's murder...

Honestly I have no idea how one could murder a fetus and feel justified in doing so just because government allows it..

It's only murder if it's illegal and a person.

And who defines which is which?? God, law or man???

Prohibiting a fetuses right to develop is just as bad as rape... I call it murder and as a libertarian I would also call it tyranny...

 

[Dr Grump]

The fetus should not have to be MURDERED because the host was traumatized.

I could understand the fact the mother would not want the baby, however murdering an innocent fetus as a way to forget is absolutely wrong... That's no better than raping another - as a matter of fact its worse considering it's murder...

Honestly I have no idea how one could murder a fetus and feel justified in doing so just because government allows it..

It's only murder if it's illegal and a person.

And who defines which is which?? God, law or man???

Prohibiting a fetuses right to develop is just as bad as rape... I call it murder and as a libertarian I would also call it tyranny...

Man's law defines it

You can call it a pink elephant in a tutu if you like. Doesn't make it murder...

 

[Mr.Nick]

The fetus should not have to be MURDERED because the host was traumatized.

I could understand the fact the mother would not want the baby, however murdering an innocent fetus as a way to forget is absolutely wrong... That's no better than raping another - as a matter of fact its worse considering it's murder...

Honestly I have no idea how one could murder a fetus and feel justified in doing so just because government allows it..

This means you are okay with a rape victim getting an abortion prior to the 9th week after conception. So are most people.

A fetus is a living being.........

Murdering innocent people is wrong...

Not only is it wrong - it's first degree murder committed by the mother...

 

[Dr Grump]

One, it shows that folks like Rick and those who agree with him suffer from a deeply flawed sense of morality.

Per your opinion

Two, they will never have the votes, so what they believe is immaterial.

Yet you felt the need to comment anyway.

Thanks

here is what I did.
Jakey...dont get all flustered now that I am showing it off.....

Nothing wrong with doing it that way, but it may confuse people who come to the debate late or are new to the board.

The rule is more about people saying something in a quote and that quote being changed. Even then, I think it is a dumbass rule. Even the preson who instituted it thought it was a dumbass rule, but there was so much whining from a couple of neocon posters that he put it in so they'd stop PMing him.