Rick Santorum says birth control harms women

It is so scary for me to think if he were to become president how it could negatively impact the lives of so many women. Republicans want to force women to have kids but also cut-off welfare families need to take care of these children.

drivingmissdaisy said:

It is so scary for me to think if he were to become president how it could negatively impact the lives of so many women. Republicans want to force women to have kids but also cut-off welfare families need to take care of these children.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is totally illogical! Hard not to get upset about this stance.

dorispulaski said:

It's more likely that the child (of rape) will have significant genetic issues inherited from its father. Perhaps a tendency to alcoholism, heritable mental disorders, uncontrollable rage etc. A person who is not the rape victim will probably have a better chance of successfully raising that child and loving it. Unwanted children on average have a bad time of it in any case. And that's when rape is not involved....The child would be growing up with a woman who is at risk for post traumatic stress disorder...

Click to expand...

Is it OK to kill someone because he is alcoholic, mentally ill, emotionally troubled, or genetically defected? Because he has less chance of success in school or career? Because his mother is suffering post traumatic stress disorder and doesn't love him at all? Flash a knife before an alcoholic and ask if he would prefer to live or die, or point a gun at an unloved child and ask why he deserves life. I'm against death penalty because I would rather let 99 criminals live than mistakenly kill one innocent. Even if the statistics suggest that 90% of children born of rape might be disadvantaged genetically, socially, mentally or whatever, does that justify the killing of 10% healthy, normal kids?

An abortion prerequisite bill was introduced in Iowa House on January 12, 2012 that would require a woman to view an ultrasound image of her baby and listen to its heartbeat before she could choose an abortion. The point is: There is a life, a heartbeating life in the belly. Although out of sight, out of mind, it is there, real and alive.

Don't take choices away. Choices to use BC; choices to end a pregnancy if you want; to have a pregnancy if you want.

skatinginbc said:

Is it OK to kill someone because he is alcoholic, mentally ill, emotionally troubled, or genetically defected? Because he has less chance of success in school or career? Because his mother is suffering post traumatic stress disorder and doesn't love him at all? Flash a knife before an alcoholic and ask if he would prefer to live or die, or point a gun at an unloved child and ask why he deserves life. I'm against death penalty because I would rather let 99 criminals live than mistakenly kill one innocent. Even if the statistics suggest that 90% of children born of rape might be disadvantaged genetically, socially, mentally or whatever, does that justify the killing of 10% healthy, normal kids?

An abortion prerequisite bill was introduced in Iowa House on January 12, 2012 that would require a woman to view an ultrasound image of her baby and listen to its heartbeat before she could choose an abortion. The point is: There is a life, a heartbeating life in the belly. Although out of sight, out of mind, it is there, real and alive.

Click to expand...

That is not what I was arguing: I was arguing that if a woman was crazy enough (IMO) to have the child of rape, she should be willing to give the child the best chance of a decent life possible, which, frankly, would be best achieved by giving the child up for adoption.

But since we're going there, no I don't believe that 10 cells in a bunch is a child. It could become a child, but it isn't one yet, in my opinion. If you are raped, take the Plan B, would be my advice, but that would be my advice & my choice. I would leave that choice to the woman in the situation herself, not to me.

However, I also believe that a child that you've given birth to deserves the best chance you can give it. Unwanted children have a bad time of it-adoption would be better for the child. But again, I would leave that choice to the mother, and pray continuously for the poor child if the mother decided not to give it up for adoption, and try to help the child if I could, if they were people I knew.

While we're asking rhetorical questions, a dog has the the intelligence of a two year old child. A cat has the intelligence of a year and a half year old child. Why is it OK to euthanize dogs and cats? Why is it OK to force a woman to die from an ectopic pregnancy, when the child will die whether the mother lives or not?

Would you force someone to give a liver or kidney or lung to someones else who would die without it? Should all organs be donated from corpses without the prior written consent of the person when they were alive? Should parents be able to choose to separate Siamese twins, which it is likely that one of the will die of the operation? Should people be able to shoot other people in self defense? Should there be capital punishment? If 10 cells is a person, should in vitro fertilization be prohibited, since it results in the death of a number of embryos?

It is common practice for doctors not to choose to give organ transplants to people who are alcoholics at least in some states. In fact, the ex-wife of one of my thesis advisers died because she couldn't give up alcohol, and, as a result, couldn't get a liver transplant. Was that right? She wanted to live, and did nothing more destructive than write funny letters to the paper when drunk

We started a war in Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of people who were not defective in any way. Was that right?

I am also puzzled at people who think that looking at an ultrasound would convince any one of anything. A doll looks like a baby too, but it isn't one. It's nice of the Iowa legislature to give increased sales to ultrasound machine sellers, and nasty of them to make abortion more expensive for people who have chosen to have one, and consequently, making abortions less available to poor women while not affecting the choices of rich women. Why people make an argument for the personhood of a fetus, focussing on the heart beat is even odder to me. What would be more definitive, again in my opinion, is when does brain activity begin--and the answer is at 25 weeks. Cats, dogs, snakes, and in a sense, earthworms, all have hearts. Why would the age at which a fetus has a heart convince anyone of anything different about when life begins?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_does_a_fetus_have_brain_activity


Most people hold a set of inconsistent views about many of these things.

I, for example, am against capital punishment, against forced organ transplant, against shooting at people who are shooting at me, but I don't have any problems with allowing a woman to choose an abortion, particularly in the first trimester.

Because these beliefs are intertwined with people's religious beliefs, we all start from different viewpoints to evaluate these questions, and I recognize that. It makes discussion difficult, but not, I think, impossible.


When people start from a different set of firmly held beliefs, it's difficult to discuss things. It helps if you know where they are coming from. Consequently, I would like know whether you think contraception should also be illegal, whether sex, when not for purposes of procreation is sinful?

Another point worth making with regard to mandatory ultrasounds prior to abortions is the fact that Virginia is currently reviewing proposed legislation to mandate not just pre-abortion ultrasounds, but highly invasive ones. The legislation's original language requires women seeking abortions to submit to not a standard ultrasound but a transvaginal one. (Forgive my but I am only using as much specific language as is necessary to describe the procedure in question.) The woman's doctor would be compelled to perform the procedure, which involves the insertion of an ultrasound probe into the woman's genitals regardless of his/her professional opinion on its necessity. Ironically, the legislation does not require the woman to see the ultrasound image, only that she be given the option of viewing it. It does, however, require that a copy of the image be placed and kept in the woman's medical records. There are no exceptions for woman needing abortions to save their lives or for those who have suffered rape or incest. (It's a law straight out of Santorum's wildest fantasies.) I can come to only one conclusion about the intent of such a measure. It is meant to shame and humiliate the woman seeking the abortion.

Because of the obviously uncomfortable subject matter, the national press virtually ignored this story (aside from Rachel Maddow) for over a week. Only toward the end of last week and beginning of this one did coverage increase. Even so, some of it glossed over or even ignored the most egregious element of the bill. As smarmy as it is to contemplate, it is worth discussion. Both Virginia law and new FBI regulations define the non-consensual insertion of a foreign object into a person's body as rape. Therefore the argument is being made that Virginia is proposing a mandatory rape of female patients by their doctors before seeking an abortion. What's even worse is that this bill is closely modeled after an already existing law in North Dakota, but no one bothered to look at what the imposition of such a law would mean on the women in question.

Fortunately, enough of a fuss was raised just in time in order to get the governor to pull his support for the original language. He and the Republican leaders edited the bill to no mandate abdominal ultrasounds. The House of Delegates passed that new language this afternoon.

All of this matters in part because the current governor of Virginia is term limited and is actively lobbying to be the VP nominee for the GOP. He's considered a top three option. Also, the Virginia Senate race is one of the hottest in the nation and features two of the last three governors as the candidates. Of course, it's also a critical swing state for the presidency as well.

Still it's crazy to think that so many of these social cases recently involve the government or large religious institutions fighting for the right to tell large groups of women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. They are being told that they should have to be shamed for any choices they make, should have to pay more to maintain a basic quality of life, and should not be involved in the public debate about their own health. It's most disturbing.

The Republican Party is digging its own grave. A man or woman who just lost his job and his house, who is at his wit's end as to how to provide for his family -- this person is not going to cast his vote for President because of someone's position on birth control or gay marriage.

If the Republicans surrender the economic stage to President Obama, while they are discussing hot-button emotional issues, they will be out of luck in November.

They sure are, Mathman.