Santorum and Pawlenty on Abortion During the Debate

[GHook93]

I was discussed by both their answers.

Commentator: You oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest correct?
Santorum: Well in the case of rape, we don't execute the rapist, but we will execute the baby caused by the rape!

WTF is wrong with that guy! Is he that immoral to force a woman to have a child who was raped? He would also include incest there also! I am glad this guy is out of our government!

Commentator: You got the marks for as the most prolife candidate, are you?
Pawlenty: Well the only case I might consider abortion is if the mother's life is in dange!

WTF is wrong with this guy also. First, it was a might, meaning when push came to shove he would deny it. Second, rape, incest, 13 yr getting pregnant or there are serious birth defects are a no go!

I am not shy is saying I am pro-choice in the first trimester, but these two are NUTZ!

 

[Avatar4321]

I thought his answers were rather poignant.

Does it really make sense to execute the innocent child concieved through rape and not the man who perpetrated the rape to begin with?

Does it really make sense to put a woman through the trauma of an abortion after she experiences the trauma of a rape?

And interesting question: Considering the trauma that is involved in rape, can a woman who is reeling from that trauma truly consent to an abortion? It seems to be that the whole reason that we say that women should be allowed the choice in that case is because of the involuntary nature of the conception and the trauma of the event. but if the trauma is truly that great, then the ability to voluntary consent to the abortion should come into question. And if the trauma wasn't that great, then how can we justify the abortion?

I have no doubt that that we will never truly have a discussion on any of these points. Because the whole abortion debate is designed to emotionally charge people and eliminate any possibility of rational discussion. And I can certainly understand why it's so emotionally charged. We are talking about the life of a child and the rights of a parents. But I dont think thats a good reason to ignore the tough questions nor to apply rational analysis to look at both sides of the issue.

I expect the response to my questions and point will be emotional though.

Personally, however, I find their position much more rational than the alternative.

 

[flacaltenn]

Before y'all launch into another abortion kerfuffle -- I gotta say..

I thoroughly support people of faith. I have no malice against the GOP or these candidates -- but Santorum scares the living crap out of me with his "social activist" views on the role of govt in moral issues. ALSO on US interventionist policy.. Makes Bachmann look like a agnostic.

There was several points in debate where he went after Ron Paul (a very good sign for Paul).. But Santorum justified intervention in Iran by slamming them for "offenses to women" and "persecution of gays".. One of the most SURREAL arguments I've ever heard from a hypocrite.

This guy doesn't have a chance to lead this country -- no matter how well he understands Washington or the economy..

 

[masquerade]

I was discussed by both their answers.

Commentator: You oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest correct?
Santorum: Well in the case of rape, we don't execute the rapist, but we will execute the baby caused by the rape!

WTF is wrong with that guy! Is he that immoral to force a woman to have a child who was raped? He would also include incest there also! I am glad this guy is out of our government!

I had a similar reaction when I heard his response last night. As a woman, I tried to put myself in that situation. If I was raped, would I want to carry to full-term the rapist's baby? It would be a constant reminder that I don't think I could live with regardless of the fact that I have always said I could not go through with an abortion. I think in this situation I would make an exception.

 

[Luissa]

I thought his answers were rather poignant.

Does it really make sense to execute the innocent child concieved through rape and not the man who perpetrated the rape to begin with?

Does it really make sense to put a woman through the trauma of an abortion after she experiences the trauma of a rape?

And interesting question: Considering the trauma that is involved in rape, can a woman who is reeling from that trauma truly consent to an abortion? It seems to be that the whole reason that we say that women should be allowed the choice in that case is because of the involuntary nature of the conception and the trauma of the event. but if the trauma is truly that great, then the ability to voluntary consent to the abortion should come into question. And if the trauma wasn't that great, then how can we justify the abortion?

I have no doubt that that we will never truly have a discussion on any of these points. Because the whole abortion debate is designed to emotionally charge people and eliminate any possibility of rational discussion. And I can certainly understand why it's so emotionally charged. We are talking about the life of a child and the rights of a parents. But I dont think thats a good reason to ignore the tough questions nor to apply rational analysis to look at both sides of the issue.

I expect the response to my questions and point will be emotional though.

Personally, however, I find their position much more rational than the alternative.

Does it make sense to force a women to have the child of her rapist? Do you read what you write?
I would never want to have a child conceived by rape.

 

[Immanuel]

Before y'all launch into another abortion kerfuffle -- I gotta say..

I thoroughly support people of faith. I have no malice against the GOP or these candidates -- but Santorum scares the living crap out of me with his "social activist" views on the role of govt in moral issues. ALSO on US interventionist policy.. Makes Bachmann look like a agnostic.

There was several points in debate where he went after Ron Paul (a very good sign for Paul).. But Santorum justified intervention in Iran by slamming them for "offenses to women" and "persecution of gays".. One of the most SURREAL arguments I've ever heard from a hypocrite.

This guy doesn't have a chance to lead this country -- no matter how well he understands Washington or the economy..

I have read some of your posts, but I don't really know you all that well or much about where you stand politically. I have considered you kind of middle of the road like me.

However, in response to your statement about being afraid of Rick Santorum's social activism are you by any chance afraid of the social activism displayed by President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or his ex-house counterpart Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It seems to me that Santorum's activism is extremely mild compared to all three of these listed. Just think Obamacare as much as I hate that term.

Immie

 

[Missourian]

I thought it was a great answer and an excellent point...

But I also think it is wrong.

One of the key supporting pillars of my pro-life stance is that all women have a choice when it comes to conceiving a child.

Whether that is abstinance or birth control pills or condoms...it's a choice.

A rape removes that choice.

Therefore, while I oppose abortion, this is an instance where abortion is the lesser of two evils.

 

[flacaltenn]

Immie:

Before y'all launch into another abortion kerfuffle -- I gotta say..

I thoroughly support people of faith. I have no malice against the GOP or these candidates -- but Santorum scares the living crap out of me with his "social activist" views on the role of govt in moral issues. ALSO on US interventionist policy.. Makes Bachmann look like a agnostic.

There was several points in debate where he went after Ron Paul (a very good sign for Paul).. But Santorum justified intervention in Iran by slamming them for "offenses to women" and "persecution of gays".. One of the most SURREAL arguments I've ever heard from a hypocrite.

This guy doesn't have a chance to lead this country -- no matter how well he understands Washington or the economy..

I have read some of your posts, but I don't really know you all that well or much about where you stand politically. I have considered you kind of middle of the road like me.

However, in response to your statement about being afraid of Rick Santorum's social activism are you by any chance afraid of the social activism displayed by President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or his ex-house counterpart Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It seems to me that Santorum's activism is extremely mild compared to all three of these listed. Just think Obamacare as much as I hate that term.

Immie

As opinionated as I am -- "middle of the road" doesn't cut it. But like you -- I may have to decide on a moments' notice which foxhole to dive into.. Only a real choice of two makes the decision riskier..

Supporting Choice on everything -- doesn't mean I condone everything. In fact, I think most abortion and most drug use are evil, but federal wars on either on them are counter-productive and stupid.

I've always defended people of faith by declaring that liberty and CHOICE is FAR more at risk from the Left using the power of State, than it is from the right using the power of State. Simply because of the MAGNITUDE of the demands that the left makes on personal choices both economic and social. From toilet bowls to tax codes. So yeah -- I'm not a REP or a CONServative, but I fear the left far more..

If there's a threat of state/religious collusion from the right -- Santorum is it..