Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: Rick Santorum says birth control harms women

  1. #1
    Custom Title Johar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Petoskey, Michigan
    Posts
    1,683

    Rick Santorum says birth control harms women

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo


    Is this 2012 or 1955? Does he know that married women also use birth control so they can have sex without getting pregnant? Does he know many women take birth control to control pain during periods?

    He scares me because he sounds like he would forbid unmarried females from obtaining any for of birth control.

  2. #2
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    14,464
    This is a man who thought it was appropriate to take home his dead premature (20 weeks) baby home to meet his other kids as a show-and-tell that the baby was a baby and not a fetus.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr17.html

    He does not believe in birth control for his wife. Why would he believe it would be OK for other people's wives?

    He believes that gays are equivalent to child molesters and such, and that consenting adults have no right to privacy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santoru..._homosexuality

    He was disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision that disallowed arresting and jailing gay couples in Texas. Make no mistake, this is not about disagreeing with gay marriage; this is about criminalizing homosexuality.

    He is genuinely a conservative Catholic.

    Unfortunately he is also a dirt bag with respect to lobbyists, just like regular politicians, as Deirdre Imus revealed on this morning show, when he told her himself explicitly that he could not support the Autism Speaks bill because he gets his money from drug & chemical companies. Now this is hearsay from Deirdre, but she is ordinarily highly conservative herself. She said that if Santorum were running against Obama, she'd vote for Obama. That was a surprise to me.

    His morals only extend to the sex lives of others.

    And this is no secret; it's well-known.

    And he just won 3 states in the Republican primaries, indicating that his extreme views are popular with a lot of Republicans.

    People that are interested in retaining the right to use things like the pill (and I don't mean the morning after pill), or who have relatives and friends who are gay, and will be stuffed back into the closet if they do not want to go to prison, should think twice before voting for Republicans who are this socially conservative. In fact, Santorum does not even believe in condoms, and has been vocal about it during the debate, although he has said he wouldn't impose that view on the country. Yarite.

  3. #3
    Custom Title Johar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Petoskey, Michigan
    Posts
    1,683
    They don't want women to have abortions and they don't want us to use birth control. WTH?! And now he says rape is a gift!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaXmAZEzEwQ
    Last edited by Johar; 02-08-2012 at 10:31 AM.

  4. #4
    Rooting for the divas with Kwanford Spun Silver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    4,880
    ^ I'm not going to get into Santorum's or the Catholic Church's social views here.

    But I would like to say in response to Doris's first paragraph above that to use a dead infant and how a family dealt with such a terribly sad event to score political points, a la Alan Colmes and WaPo, is really low. Even Colmes realized this and apologized. It's too bad the Santorums didn't deal with their premature baby's death the way you would have, Doris, but a little compassion would be in order.

  5. #5
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    14,464
    No, it's not in order. When you run for president, all your peculiarities are on the table for public examination, particularly those you revealed yourself.

    It isn't like the Santorum's premature baby died last week, in which case they would deserve time to grieve. This occurred in 1998, and Santorum saw fit to give it as an example of his commitment to the anti-abortion cause in 2005, which is when the article was published.

    It isn't like some liberal investigative reporter dug this up by questioning people who know the Santorums. This is something Santorum announced like he is proud of what he did.

    A premature child's corpse is not a play toy, nor is it religious class demonstration.

    Santorum's actions with his premature child's corpse are a fact about Santorum-it isn't something that was invented by somebody on Fox News (Colmes). In fact, one should consider who Colmes' employer is when considering what to think of the fact that he apologized.

    It's something Santorum thought was ordinary enough to talk to reporters about. To me, this demonstrates that Santorum is a guy whose thinking is so strange that it is scary to me.

    In fact, this thinking obviously seems strange to socially conservative pundits, too. Otherwise they would not be trying to suppress the story from being told by invoking the "you should be ashamed of yourself" ploy against those who repeat it. That is the only possible move for them, because frankly it is so far different from what people usually think is appropriate to do with corpses, that it needs to be told.

    It makes it all the more believable to me that he means what he says when he wants to criminalize gay people and birth control & would in so far as he was able, make his daughter bear a child conceived in rape. He is not saying those things to appeal to the most conservative of Catholics and other social conservatives. He means them.

    And that's an important thing for those who do not agree with his positions to know. Crucial in fact.

    Even the OP for this thread didn't get that Santorum doesn't just believe that birth control is bad for unmarried women. He does not believe in allowing birth control for Married Couples either, the way things were in CT when I first got married. Griswold vs. CT was about a married couple who were using a diaphragm. They were charged with a crime in Connecticut. That was the case that established the privacy right that Santorum does not agree with.
    Last edited by dorispulaski; 02-08-2012 at 02:40 PM.

  6. #6
    Rooting for the divas with Kwanford Spun Silver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    4,880
    Last summer my beloved dog was run over when we were out of town (her caretaker having carelessly left a door open). When we got home, even though it was two days later, we drove straight to the corner where she was killed and walked up and down for half an hour, looking for remnants of her body to claim and bury -- teeth, hair, whatever. We didn't find anything. The next morning, her body was brought to us by "animal control," frozen, in two big black plastic bags. I unwrapped the bags and sat for over an hour holding "the corpse" as you put it -- talking to her, crying, and praying while my husband dug a grave for her in the back yard. Seeing the condition and position of her body enabled me to reconstruct exactly what happened to her and why there were no remains on the street (she got sideswiped, broke her neck, and died instantly). We buried her with Catholic prayers and put up a statue of the Virgin Mary to watch over her. I continued talking to her for weeks after she was buried, and I tell her, "I love you, puppy" to this day.

    Do you find this "strange" and "scary"? Am I another example of someone who doesn't know what is "appropriate to do with corpses"? If so, what do you think I did wrong, and why should I take your word for it? If not, is a human baby worth less?

    "Play toy" is Colmes' invention, not Santorum's.

    Re: conservative "pundits" backing off from this story, here are two of the best known who are not doing so:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ity-rich-lowry
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...thy-mark-steyn

    On a more personal level that might help you understand the Santorums' reaction to the loss of their child, here is a reaction from another Catholic (not a pundit AFAIK) who went through something similar:
    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/r...ring-his-child

    I want to see if I can follow your reasoning as to why exposing the weirdness of Santorum's grieving process is politically important:
    1. Santorum grieved the loss of his child in a strange way and has explained it publicly, ergo he is scary.
    2. This must be told because it is outside the range of normal grieving processes.
    3. The strangeness of his grief proves that he is a strange man.
    4. This explains why his social policies are so atrocious.

    This would be impressive except that IMO no. 1 is a nonsequitur, no. 2 isn't true, no. 3 is major over-reach, and no. 4 falls apart without no. 3.

    I still think it's unscrupulous to assassinate someone's character because of the way they grieved a dead child. Your descriptions of his positions is a caricature - of Roman Catholic teachings as well as his views - but it's an election year, so thanks for helping me prepare myself for the mud-throwing.

  7. #7
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    14,464
    First I want to tell you that I am very sorry for the loss of your dog. I lost a dog to a car. His back was broken. We took him to the vets, but he died on the way home in the car. We dug a grave for him under his favorite tree and buried him. However, these days, due to the Board of Health rules, you cannot take your pet home and bury it. Nor can you dig a hole in the backyard to bury family members. When my basset Andy died, we were told that in the state of New York where we lived when she died, we could not take her home from the vet's and bury her. For health reasons (and she died of failed kidneys, not a contagious disease), the body had to be handled safely, and conveyed to the pet cemetery. Handling babies and dogs who have died is not a safe thing for a 1 1/2 year old to be doing, even to prove a religious point that they are ill equipped to understand as yet in any case.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr17.html

    The Washington Post article was not written by Allan Colmes, so I have no idea when you keep brining him into the discussion. He is not a person I have a lot of interest in , in any case.

    It was written by Mark Leibovitz, a Washington Post staff journalist, in 2005. It was not an op ed piece. It is a very long interview with Rick Santorum, and presents him as he wished himself presented at the time. If you are a supporter of Santorum, you should read it. His life and entire career is discussed.

    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."
    He then discusses kissing and cuddling the baby with their living children.

    I have no problems at all with the Santorums wishing to describe their child as a 20 week old baby on a form. Miscarriages are always tragic. People deal with them the best way they can.

    I have no problems with the Santorums hugging their baby, singing to it, and holding their own version of a service for it, although it is a bit puzzling why a devout Catholic didn't have his priest perform the service? Perhaps you would explain that to me?

    Their living children were aged 6, 4 and 1 1/2 at the time, ages when children do not yet grasp what death is, and even what life is. The parents just shouldn't have brought the baby home and let their children play with, kiss and hug him, yes in my opinion. This has nothing to do with the age of the baby or how he died. I wouldn't have wanted them to bring their dead grandma home to play with either. It's not a pleasant thing to talk about, but frankly, it's not sanitary, and little children are very vulnerable to disease.

    And when a guy stoops to using his own dead child as a political pawn, it upsets my stomach. Do you think it was appropriate to go on to reporters about the details? I don't.

    Your description of my argument is not my opinion, it is your opinion of my opinion, which is fine...you are entitled to your opinion, and entitled to vote for Rick Santorum, if he is your candidate of choice. However, you are not entitled to put words in my mouth.

    My opinion is that people have a right to read the Washington Post article and form their own opinion of Rick Santorum, based on that article, debates, the videos of him speaking about a child conceived in rape being a gift and contraception being bad for women, and good things he has done, like go for increased funding for Aids (which was in the article) and bad things he has done, like failing to support a bill because his pharmaceutical companies and drug companies did not want him to. My opinion is that in a Presidential campaign, all the material, the good, the bad, and the ugly should all be brought out, and let the voters decide.

    Reading and listening to things in my list, I would not vote for Santorum. He may, on the other hand, be your preferred candidate. And that's democracy. It will turn out however it turns out.

  8. #8
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    410
    For me this is the rub, Rick Santorum wants to enforce his values and morality on the rest of America. I respect his and his wife's right to chose to use birth control or to not, and to attempt to instill his religious values on his children or even 'preach' them to others that choose to listen. Once he wants to be my elected president and wants to instill his values on me, I have a problem and need to know more. How he dealt with the miscarriage of his son is illuminating information and absolutely up for public discussion, especially since it something he has discussed in public before. If instead we were talking about Ron Paul, for example, I wouldn't care how he handled these kind of questions in his private life, because he had said he doesn't want government involved in this part of peoples live. Rick Santorum does.

  9. #9
    Rooting for the divas with Kwanford Spun Silver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    4,880
    Doris, I'm sorry about your two dogs as well. Losing our beloved pets is a kind of grief not everyone understands. There was a lot of comfort for us in being able to bury our baby at home in "her" yard. (Finding a yard big enough for her to run around in was one of our main criteria in choosing our house.) No one including the police told us it was a problem, so I guess NJ is less restrictive than NY.

    About the effects on the children of bringing home the baby - Santorum's wife was a neonatal nurse and dealt with grieving families. Her judgment about what's sanitary and good for the kids is an expert one.

    Colmes's comments on this incident recently were notorious - that's why I mention him. Please understand that for me papers like the NYT and the WaPo are the embodiment of liberal bias. I feel about them the way you feel about Fox, i.e. I tune them out and, if I have to read them, do so with a saltshaker at hand. (And all journalists make mistakes, in my experience - I used to do PR.)

    A private Mass at the Santorum's home would have been celebrated by a priest. There is no such thing as a (valid) Mass without a priest (although it's possible that the WaPo erred in calling it a Mass).

    My analysis of your argument is my own, but in summarizing your argument I did my best to use your own language ("strange," "normal," "scary," etc.) and simply point out your logic. "Atrocious" does not mischaracterize your view of Santorum's policies, does it?

    Does Santorum go into too much detail on this story to reporters? Well, at this point -- after years of liberal obsession over it (at least from the 2005 WaPo piece you linked to 2012 Alan Colmes remarks, if not longer) -- he's running for President and hardly has an alternative to explaining himself. He can tell the story in his own way or allow liberals to "quayle" him while he exits the race in shamed silence. I'm OK with his explaining it from his own point of view with the full support of his family (all of whom survived the contact with the dead baby, happily).
    Last edited by Spun Silver; 02-09-2012 at 01:25 AM.

  10. #10
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,020
    I really thought twice about getting involved in this conversation as the feminism debate really took a lot out of me, but I think it's worthy of participation. First of all, as a lapsed Catholic who was almost exclusively educated in Catholic institutions, I understand the philosophical and ethical perspective that the Church holds on these matters, however, I do not agree with them. Santorum is an interesting character in that he adheres far more rigidly to Catholic orthodoxy than most members of the Church. It's also worth noting that while his views are being labeled as extreme, they are virtually identical to the official dogmatic teaching put forward by the Vatican. While the rest of the country and the world have become far more progressive on these issues, Santorum and the Church had remained fixed in their positions. That is important in light of both Santorum's current electoral success and the present dust up over the Obama admin's mandate on contraceptive coverage and the new Prop 8 court decision.

    As an individual freely practicing his religion in this country, Santorum is perfectly free to hold all of his beliefs and to express and practice them in private with his wife and children. While I find the story of his miscarried child to be more than a little disturbing, I also understand that families grieve in very different ways that can be foreign to others. As an example, my great-grandfather died in the late 40s. My mother and her parents all lived together with hims and my great-grandmother. As was customary at the time in many places, his body was prepared by the undertaker and then as laid out in his casket in the parlor on the first floor of the house for a couple of days including the day of the wake. My mother was 5 at the time. For my entire life, that story has creeped my out. I could not imagine being so young and having to go to sleep at night knowing there was a dead body of a loved one on the first floor below me. My experience with death had always been more detached and had involved funeral homes and churches. But when I asked my mother or my grandparents about it, they always said it never bothered them. For my grandparents it was what they had known their whole life and did not become uncommon until the 50s or 60s.

    Now, in the case of the Santorums, their choice was not a common one or one which was formerly in practice. It was unique. Odd, yes. But in the end, while I would never have done it myself, I don't begrudge them their right to make a different choice from me. If they had been mere private citizens, that would be the end of it. However, given that he is a public figure and was one at the time who has made imposing his religious views on his constituents and the nation at large, the story is relevant in assessing his character, judgment and qualification for office. The same is true of the 'dog on the car roof' story about Romney, Newt's philandering, Hillary's choice to stay with Bill or Obama's choice of church. Should any of those choices be ultimately determinative in casting a ballot? Not for me, but I vote primarily based on policy anyway. For another person, those things may matter a great deal more.

    As to his positions on matters of policy, that is where I find greatest fault with Santorum. Anyone seeking elective office should be able to reasonably separate or at least manage their personal religious faith, individual feelings and prejudices and other biases from the facts at hand when discussing, proposing or implementing policy. Harry Reid, for example is a devout Mormon who actually is personally pro-life. Yet he leads a majority caucus of Democrats in the Senate who are pro-choice. he recognizes that his personal views do not mesh with public opinion and more importantly that they conflict with legal precedent. As a result he does not impose them on policy decisions. Unfortunately, that is often not the case with other politicians. Some struggle with this concept, but make an earnest effort at it. Santorum is not one of those people.

    On a side note, given all the discussion of Catholicism in public affairs these days, it's worth noting how Catholic political Washington actually is and how that compares demographically to the rest of the country. Catholics are the single largest religious denomination in the US at around 25%. Protestants are larger collectively, but often break up in to smaller sub groups based on denomination with Baptists being the largest at about 17%. The city of Washington and the region itself has a centuries old Catholic heritage. But politically, that was not always the case. historically, Protestants (mostly Methodists, Quakers and Episcopalians) dominated congressional, presidential and Supreme Court slots. But in recent decades, the political terrain has shifted significantly toward Catholicism. The majority of the Supreme Court is Catholic (Sotomayor, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito). There are currently no protestant members. In the Senate, Catholics make up the single largest bloc with 24 seats, virtually mirroring the population. (BTW, they are the only religious group in the body to come close to reflecting their proportion in the population at large.) In the House, Catholics make up 30% of the membership, again the largest single group. Much of the political press who are reporting on these matter are also active or lapsed Catholics (Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Michael Steele, Thomas Roberts, Luke Russert, Norah O'Donnell, Mika Brzenski, Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity, etc.). By contrast only nine current Governors are Catholic.

    The imprint of the Catholic faith is on all areas of public life. Social justice teaching is strongly rooted in the Catholic Church and has influenced both the left and the right's approaches to poverty, health care, war, and yes sex. Given the very large numbers of Catholics in federal office and frequent inability of many politician to be impartial, I find that it is not surprising that many Catholic perspectives on these matters are currently in the public square.
    It's simply a matter of demographic shifts.

    As for contraception, particularly the pill, it's worth pointing out that many women, regardless of their faith, use such measures even when they are not sexually active, single or married. Some women use the pill to manage migraines, mentrual pain, severe acne, fibroids and other secondary medical issues. As someone who does not have a uterus, I personally think I have no right to dictate to women what decision they should make about their bodies. I hold a 200 year old institution run exclusively by celibate men to the same standard. However, in the Church's view there is no grey area with regard to the pill. Because it artificially prevents the normal completion of a natural biological act (egg fertilization or implantation) it is an uacceptable for medical use, even if other uses are found. It's a very black and white point of view. As a result, the Church opposes all manner of contraception deemed unnatural. Exceptions deemed natural and taught in pre-marriage counseling include modern takes on the rhythm method. Of course those are less than effective. In any case, such rigidity does not square with the modern challenges single and married women face, particularly in a world where real wages have not gone up relative to inflation in over 30 years and where women increasing must work outside the home in order to make ends meet, whether they want to or not. That same logic extends to their position on abortion, seeing the two issues as principally the same. In fact, the Church's position on homosexuality, and by extension gay marriage, is derived from the same thinking, that it does not fit within the narrow definition of sex for the purpose of procreation and heterosexual married bonding.

    In the end, it's perfectly fine for the Church to hold these beliefs, to preach them and to require their adherence by it's members. Fortunately, it's members are equally free to disregard them if they choose. Freedom of religion is about giving individuals free excerise over their own choices to participate or not in a particular faith. It's not intended to prop up particular denominations as collective institutions. IMO it's not acceptable for a church to attempt to impose its rules on non-members, the public at large or to make them matters of public policy. Given that the Church is a major employer in this country, running 1/6 of all hospitals in the US and a great many other private colleges, universities, primary and secondary schools, charities, adoption agencies, etc. there are other factors to consider as regards life in the public square. First, becoming an employer is a choice and with that choice comes resposibilites, among them is providing health insurance coverage. Then, there is the matter of these institutions serving the public at large and not just Catholics. The same principle that prohibits discrimination in employment and public accomodation applies to this contraception fight. If you open yourself up to service the public at large rather than restricting yourself to limited memebership (i.e. a private club) then you must follow federal law. Last, most of these organizations and institutions receive federal or state funds to help to subsidize their work. That necessarily dictates that the state or federal government have a say in making sure policy is consistent with exising law. Accomodations can be made, but the law can't be disregarded. In some communities the hospital may be the single largest employer and the only medical facility in the county. Women working there or seeking it's care should not be told to seek other employment or treatment merely to accomodate the employer, even if the employer is church affiliated.

    Finally, for anyone who misunderstands Santorum's position on contraception, he's not just personally opposed to it. He has said if he were elected President, he would seek to outlaw it or at least convince the country of its "wrongness". He's tried to walk that back a bit in light of his current success by saying individual states should have the right to outlaw it and that it should be not a federal issue decided by the courts (a similar argument to the one conservatives use on gay marriage when they want to sound reasonable to moderates and independents). He's also given a nod to the crazypants notion that abortion causes breast cancer. In all honesty, I hope he has a fair bit of success in the primaries (though I seriously doubt he'll be the Republican nominee). I think his extreme approach to his conservative views will expose him and his supporters as unacceptable to the mainstream.

  11. #11
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    14,464
    jcoates, Thank you for your very long reply. I was not brought up Catholic, but I have been appalled by a number of things in the religion since the age of 7, when I was the only non-Catholic child in a class in 2nd grade. My little friends were all studying for their first Communion, and in those days, it was what I understand now is the old version of the catechism. My friends wanted someone to help them practice for their quizzes. I was the only person available to help, because I wasn't taking the tests. I would read them their questions from the catechism, and they would recite the answers.

    I was terrified to think that if I were a Catholic I would have to remember everything bad I ever did and confess it, or the sin would not be forgiven, and I would go to hell or Purgatory. I was grateful to be Protestant, but what if the Catholics were right? My mother beat me regularly, clearly I was a bad little girl, and how could I remember all those sins, how could anyone? This also was not a problem I could discuss with her. I had nightmares about it the whole year.

    The second thing I found out was that I was obviously a natural Protestant, in the literal sense of the word. There were a number of long lists in the old catechism. When my friends gave their answers, I had not worried whether they recited the lists in the order they were written in the catechism, and I did not worry if they changed a word here and there, so long as they understood what everything meant, as best as we little 7 year olds could figure out, with the help of the dictionary, and that they got every item in the list, regardless of the order.

    After they took their first quiz, my student/friends reported to me that they got the question wrong if they did not use the exact words of the catechism, with all list bullets in the correct order. Their teacher did not care whether they understood a word they wrote down, and, in fact they did not understand them. I thought, what kind of teaching is this? What is good is truth without understanding? And similar Protestant thoughts.

    However, I do remember my first brush with death, which was when I was five. My great grandmother had died, and although my parents thought it was inappropriate for a 5 year old to go to the funeral, they thought it was appropriate for me to go to the funeral home for the wake. I found the whole thing very traumatic, and my mind was full of questions that it had no capacity yet to ask; I didn't have the words to formulate them. The corpse looked like my great grandmother, but it wasn't her. And she was cold to the touch. I didn't understand anything about the whole thing. Consequently, I am appalled that anyone would have a really young child of 4 or 6 handling a dead body, aside from the sanitary issues. (The 1 and 1/2 year old would probably not remember).

    And yes, what sprung to mind for me was Romney and his dog on the roof of the car. For Romney, the dog was fine in the car top carrier that was apparently made for the purpose of safely housing dogs on car roofs. It clearly was no different to him than having the airline transport the dog. I, on the other hand, would not have put a dog I loved on the roof of the car, and I have never transported a pet by air, preferring to drive, with the pet in the car, not wishing to put the animal through the trauma of a strange place with strange sounds, perhaps being cold, and in general anthropomorphizing the dog. While Romney's treatment of his dog is his private business, it is a fact about the man. As a voter, I am entitled to know about it. For me, it is the same with the way Santorum behaves with his own family.

    In both cases, the two men thought their behavior was sufficiently mainstream that it would make a heartwarming story for the press, and in both cases, they were surprised to find there was a significant portion of the population who reacted negatively.

  12. #12
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    beijing
    Posts
    1,910
    If Rick Santorum becomes President, I'm burning my US passport and asking the Chinese for asylum.

  13. #13
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Spun Silver View Post
    Last summer my beloved dog was run over when we were out of town....I continued talking to her for weeks after she was buried, and I tell her, "I love you, puppy" to this day....
    I felt saddened by the story. It is always traumatizing to deal with the death of a loved one.
    Quote Originally Posted by dorispulaski View Post
    I have no problems with the Santorums hugging their baby, singing to it, and holding their own version of a service for it...Their living children were aged 6, 4 and 1 1/2 at the time, ages when children do not yet grasp what death is, and even what life is. The parents just shouldn't have brought the baby home and let their children play with, kiss and hug him...
    Indeed, those children did not know what life is, let alone death. To them, it was only a toy or a strange humanlike object to which the adults demanded them to show some artificial affections. However, the 6-year-old and the 4-year-old might vaguely remember such unusual event and gradually add meanings to it as they grow older (And such memory or meaning may be reinforced by the adults' retelling the story). It is possible that such experience may implant a pro-life value in their minds. Nothing wrong with pro-life (it is good as a matter of fact)--as long as it is not a synonym of "against-choice".
    Quote Originally Posted by Johar View Post
    And now he says rape is a gift!
    I don't think he really meant "rape is a gift". "Life is a gift" is what I got from listening to his interview. It is always a dilemma for a rape victim to decide whether to keep the child or not. Either way the victim would feel or eventually feel some sort of negative emotions including guilt. To facilitate an informed, well-thought decision is what we should call for. It can lessen or prevent the regret and guilt that may come back to haunt one. Is there any prerequisite for abortion, especially for rape victims, who certainly need intensive counseling? Each woman is unique, with different values, mental conditions and social/financial supports. Life is a gift to some while a rape-begotten child is a curse to others. Forcing everyone to make the same decision is, in my book, a crime.
    Last edited by skatinginbc; 02-09-2012 at 09:08 AM.

  14. #14
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,020
    BTW, this weekend the ultra inflammatory rhetoric on these issues will reach it's annual fever pitch this weekend at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) here in DC. None of the toxic political debate you see on cable news or even in the thick of the presidential primaries or general election comes close to what CPAC cranks out each winter. The way politicians who speak there manage to drag their own positions off the deep end in order to appeal to the attendees is really remarkable. For one weekend, everyone there will sound like Santorum clones.

    As to the "rape is a gift" discussion, skatingin bc, I think you are giving Santorum too much of the benefit of the doubt. While your position is indeed reasonable in allowing for different choices among women who suffer this crime. Santorum's rigid opposition to abortion and emergency contraception in all cases, including rape, would preclude the very variety of choice you advocate. He does not want women to even have the option to consider an alternative the does not involve carrying the pregnancy to term.

    Lastly, it's worth considering how much religiously affiliated institutions have changed over the decades. During my grandmother and mother's childhoods, Catholic schools were staffed almost exclusively by priests and nuns. Lay (i.e. non-religious) staff were rare. That started to change in the late 60s. By the time I was in school in the 80s and 90s, the balance was shifting from half and half to almost exclusively non-religious staff. New vocations into religious orders declined for decades leading to the necessity for hiring non-religious staff, including those of other faiths. In fact the rules of operation used to be quite different. When I was in grade school, non-Catholic students could only get a maximum of a B+ in religion class regardless of merit. That changed when my mother and a few other parents made a fuss and pointed out that it as the 1980s, not the 40s and that non-Catholics made up a majority of some of the grades thus keeping the entire school open with their tuition. The same issues are faced in Catholic hospitals and other institutions where the work was formerly done internally rather than being outsourced

    So in a way, this situation was inevitable because the Church chooses to remain involved in providing these services, but is unable staff them without secular and unaffiliated help. They also accept payment for their services from insurance plans and employers that may have contrary views to their own. So the supposed conflict of interest with regard to funds cuts both ways.

  15. #15
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    14,464
    While there may be some here and there, I can't see how a person would get over a rape if they had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, due to the rapist.

    Many women report it as a rape that lasts nine months or more. There is nothing that is a gift about that pregnancy.

    I can easily picture a women who is very anti-abortion choosing to carry the child to term, but I can't picture anyone choosing to keep such a child rather than giving it up for adoption, except in very, very unusual circumstances. In which case, how is there any gift involved?

    A horrible rape, 9 months when it will be functionally impossible not to think about the rape every hour, since the evidence of it is literally right in front of you, a risk of death, and a certainty of pain during delivery. Where is there any gift in that?

    And if someone choose to keep such a child, how could the mother not see the rapist's face in the child's face? How could such a mother be a good choice as a parent for that child?

    Gift is a particularly inapt word, IMO.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •