Rick Santorum Is Insane

[jillian]

I'll be glad to, Dr Grump. Ample evidence exists. But first, I'd like to hear your best guess. There is no mysterious scientific juju at work here; just use your common sense. What conceivable medical situation could exist that would allow delivering all of a baby's body except its head - which must first be ripped open and collapsed by having its brain vacuumed out? Protecting the mother from a possible encounter with dandruff? What?

How about hydrocephalus?

 

[musicman]

How about hydrocephalus?

Would you be good enough to elaborate?

 

[Abbey Normal]

How about hydrocephalus?

Going out on a limb here, as I dont have time to look it up, but isn't the general treatment for that to drain water off of the brain? Not death by skull crushing? My uncle had it, and survived.

 

[Bonnie]

Wow. How sick and unsettling, Mr Santorum! Don't you prefer a good old fashioned lib-endorsed partial birth abortion? Cracking an infant's skull and sucking it's brains out; so stable, no gross factor there. So much better than all that insane cuddling of your infant.

P.S. This may be the single most mean and pathetic thread I have ever seen.

Sick Huh??

 

[jillian]

Sick Huh??

Far sicker are the objections to calling him on a public statement he's using to pursue an extremist legislative agenda.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

the left wants to devalue human life in general, so they can have all the extra parts they want "for the benefit of humanity". The greatest evil, for the greatest good. You know how they justify stuff. They're sick.

 

[musicman]

Far sicker are the objections to calling him on a public statement he's using to pursue an extremist legislative agenda.

Whose call should abortion policy be?

 

[Bonnie]

Far sicker are the objections to calling him on a public statement he's using to pursue an extremist legislative agenda.

Explainey??

"That's my little guy," Santorum says, pointing to the photo of Gabriel, in which his tiny physique is framed by his father's hand. The senator often speaks of his late son in the present tense. It is a rare instance in which he talks softly.

He and Karen brought Gabriel's body home so their children could "absorb and understand that they had a brother," Santorum says. "We wanted them to see that he was real," not an abstraction, he says. Not a "fetus," either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described -- "a 20-week-old fetus" -- on a hospital form. They changed the form to read "20-week-old baby."

Karen Santorum, a former nurse, wrote letters to her son during and after her pregnancy. She compiled them into a book, "Letters to Gabriel," a collection of prayers, Bible passages and a chronicle of the prenatal complications that led to Gabriel's premature delivery. At one point, her doctor raised the prospect of an abortion, an "option" Karen ridicules. "Letters to Gabriel" also derides "pro-abortion activists" and decries the "infanticide" of "partial-birth abortion," the legality of which Rick Santorum was then debating in the Senate. The book reads, in places, like a call to action.

"When the partial-birth abortion vote comes to the floor of the U.S. Senate for the third time," Karen writes to Gabriel, "your daddy needs to proclaim God's message for life with even more strength and devotion to the cause."

The issue came up again the following spring. Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, appeared on the Senate floor with oversize illustrations of fetuses in various stages of delivery. He described the process by which a physician "brutally kills" a child "by thrusting a pair of scissors into the back of its skull and suctioning its brains out." He asked that a 5-year-old girl be admitted to the visitors' gallery, though Senate rules forbid children under 6. "She is very interested in the subject," Santorum said, explaining that the girl's mother had been a candidate for a late-term abortion when doctors advised her during her pregnancy that the child was unlikely to survive.

Ill ask you what exactly is insane about any of this?? Be specific please..

 

[jillian]

Whose call should abortion policy be?

You know my answer to that, MM. The woman who has to make the decision.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Check out the facts about one of their pioneer thinkers, Eugenicist Nazi, Margaret Sanger

http://www.acts1711.com/sanger.htm

Margaret Sanger

Mother of Planned Parenthood, pro-abortionist
and American Eugenics

Margaret Sanger is founder of Planned Parenthood, and the one who inspired Adolph Hitler in his views of eugenics and "murdering socially undesirable people."

Margaret Sanger, through Planned Parenthood, advocated abortions on Afro-Americans in order to eliminate what she called "socially undesirable people". This site is an excellent Afro-American response against Sanger's racist eugenics: Genocide against Afro-Americans

Exposing the fascist thinking of Margaret Sanger.
Her left-wing sisters, such as Gloria Steinem, had to selectively overlook this part of Margaret Sanger when they praise her feminist achievements.Ms. Sanger began her career as a nurse and political rebel, acting in association with the International Workers of the World (IWW) and with Emma Goldman, foundress of the American Communist Party. (Ms. Goldman also mentored Roger Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union - ACLU)

"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population"

Who spoke these words? The Klu Klux Klan? Aryan Nations? The National Socialist (Nazi) Party? These are the words of Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider and promoter of legal abortion in the United States.

Abortion clinics were originally set up with the intention of slowing the population growth of Afro-Americans and others racial groups considered mentally or otherwise inferior.

Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood is the major force behind the abortion and pro-choice/abortion movement in America. If you are proud of being pro-choice, you should know more about the most responsible person for the pro-abortion-rights movement and abortion industry in the 20th century.

"Lothrop Stoddard was on the board of directors (of Margaret Sanger's Population Association of America) for years.... He had an interview with Adolf Hitler and was very impressed. His book, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, was written while he served on Sanger's board. Havelock Ellis, one of Sanger's extra-marital lovers, reviewed this..book favorably in The Birth Control Review".

At a March,1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Margaret Sanger's beliefs about social works of charity are revealing: She criticized the success-- not failure-- of charity... She called for the halt to the medical care being given to slum mothers, and decried the expense to the taxpayers of monies being spent on the deaf, blind and dependent. She condemned foreign missionaries for reducing the infant mortality rates in developing countries, and declared charity to be more evil than for the assistance it provided to the poor and needy. Sanger's thinking moved to fascism in an elitist attitude that presumes to judge who is worthy to live and to die.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'll be glad to, Dr Grump. Ample evidence exists. But first, I'd like to hear your best guess. There is no mysterious scientific juju at work here; just use your common sense. What conceivable medical situation could exist that would allow delivering all of a baby's body except its head - which must first be ripped open and collapsed by having its brain vacuumed out? Protecting the mother from a possible encounter with dandruff? What?

Stump up the evidence then. Do you think the procedure was brought about because the doctors who perform it are a bunch of psycho sickos who couldn't think of a better way of performing the procedure? You think they are just sadists?? Please, Dr MM, tell us all how to perform the procedure in a much more practical way that would lead to less stress all round?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Stump up the evidence then. Do you think the procedure was brought about because the doctors who perform it are a bunch of psycho sickos who couldn't think of a better way of performing the procedure? You think they are just sadists?? Please, Dr MM, tell us all how to perform the procedure in a much more practical way that would lead to less stress all round?

It's a way of killing a fully viable baby, while still in utero, to avoid those pesky murder charges.

 

[musicman]

You know my answer to that, MM. The woman who has to make the decision.

Ah - because the decision only affects HER, right? The helpless baby inside her is shit out of luck? The father has no say? Society has no stake in the decision - no right to feel alarm at the generalized cheapening of life - the inexorable march of barbarianism that invents a right to consequence-free sex, at the price of innocent life? And, parallel to all this loving tenderness, the concept of representative government can take a flying leap, too?

We shall see, jillian - we shall see.

 

[musicman]

Stump up the evidence then. Do you think the procedure was brought about because the doctors who perform it are a bunch of psycho sickos who couldn't think of a better way of performing the procedure? You think they are just sadists?? Please, Dr MM, tell us all how to perform the procedure in a much more practical way that would lead to less stress all round?

No good, Dr Grump. I stated the terms of the bargain; you're not holding up your end.

This isn't rocket science, man. Give me your best guess. What possible benefit to the "health of the mother" is ripping open her baby's skull and sucking out its brain - the rest of its doomed little body already having been delivered?

 

[jillian]

Ah - because the decision only affects HER, right? The helpless baby inside her is shit out of luck? The father has no say? Society has no stake in the decision - no right to feel alarm at the generalized cheapening of life - the inexorable march of barbarianism that invents a right to consequence-free sex, at the price of innocent life? And, parallel to all this loving tenderness, the concept of representative government can take a flying leap, too?

We shall see, jillian - we shall see.

The decision in Roe determined nothing more than that the governmental interest in the pregnancy does not outweigh the right of the individual to determine her own choices.

Would you prefer that men had veto power?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The decision in Roe determined nothing more than that the governmental interest in the pregnancy does not outweigh the right of the individual to determine her own choices.

Would you prefer that men had veto power?

Only lefty immoralists like you believe the court is infallible jillian. Their refusal to take the rights of the unborn into consideration is an abomination.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's a way of killing a fully viable baby, while still in utero, to avoid those pesky murder charges.

Yeah. that's the reason they do it....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yeah. that's the reason they do it....

Yes. It is, actually.

 

[musicman]

The decision in Roe determined nothing more than that the governmental interest in the pregnancy does not outweigh the right of the individual to determine her own choices.

No - it determined that central government - in the person of the federal judiciary - had any business in the decision AT ALL. Roe is bad law; a sixth grader could understand it, provided he/she didn't have blinders on. That's why the ruling is doomed.

Would you prefer that men had veto power?

Ah - so it's a "man vs. woman" thing. There are more women than men in this country. What terrors does leaving it to the voters hold for you? You know Roe is dead, don't you?

 

[Dr Grump]

No good, Dr Grump. I stated the terms of the bargain; you're not holding up your end.

This isn't rocket science, man. Give me your best guess. What possible benefit to the "health of the mother" is ripping open her baby's skull and sucking out its brain - the rest of its doomed little body already having been delivered?

Your bargain is fatally flawed. It is too narrow in its parameters and you don't have a better answer other than don't perform it. Conservatives try and give off the impression that the procedure is performed by some devil with horns who love to murder, maim and kill. That is YOUR premise. A flawed, untrue and inflammatory one just so you can try and get a very weak point across. You use emotive language to try and make out these doctors to be animals and the mothers likewise. These procedures are NOT a matter of course, nor are they taken lightly. As I said, if you can come up with a better method Dr MM I'm all ears. The fact you are dodging and weaving and not answering speaks volumes. I would think there are several reasons the mother's life could be in danger, which is why the procedure is carried out. That and severe disabilities. So, I reiterate once again, and would love an answer, outside of NOT performing the act, what other method would you use? Because, you know, doctors etc would purposefully make it the most grusome and unpleasant experience they could, right?