Santorum Gnawing On His Foot?

PistolPackingMomma · Feb 11, 2012

I believe the decision, and thus the power, should be returned to the states. Some states have the death penalty, others don't.

Would I like abortion to never happen again? Absolutely! Do I think the Federal government is the way to achieve that goal? Absolutely not.

Jack House · Feb 11, 2012

PistolPackingMomma said:
I believe the decision, and thus the power, should be returned to the states. Some states have the death penalty, others don't.

Would I like abortion to never happen again? Absolutely! Do I think the Federal government is the way to achieve that goal? Absolutely not.

So it's a states vs fed issue and not an abortion should be legal issue?

PistolPackingMomma · Feb 11, 2012

As much as I would like abortion to be illegal, I can't and don't expect it's an issue everyone will ever agree on, and I don't think it's appropriate for me to push my moral, ethical and religious beliefs on every person living in this country. If it is an issue left up to the states, I can choose to live in a state that aligns with my personal views (such as one that outlaws abortion), just as those on the opposite side can live in states that align with theirs.

Is that a perfect answer? No. But it's the best way I've found to meld my personal morality and love of liberty.

RetiredOC · Feb 12, 2012

Life starts at conception. To terminate a pregnancy is to terminate a human life.

I feel that getting pregnant from rape is awful, just an awful terrible no good probably worst situation you could EVER be in.

I also feel that taking a human life is awful, just an awful terrible no good situation, especially when the child had nothing to do with it.

^ Either outcome is a ******* shame.

This also crosses my mind; who are the majority of people getting abortions? How many kids don't have homes now? How many of these would have been aborted kids are going to grow up and leech off the welfare system that I have to pay for for the rest of their lives?

I don't really like thinking about it. If my wife was raped and became pregnant...I don't even know how to respond to that. I don't think there is a perfect answer right now.

Here's what I do know, I don't want my tax dollars funding anyone's abortions. I think I read some statistics online a while ago that showed abortions for rape/incest being under 1% of all abortions, but don't quote me on that.

thebigsd · Feb 12, 2012

Schlitz said:
SNIP I think I read some statistics online a while ago that showed abortions for rape/incest being under 1% of all abortions, but don't quote me on that.

This article with appropriate cites seems to back up this claim.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

sudden valley gunner · Feb 12, 2012

Schlitz said:
Life starts at conception. To terminate a pregnancy is to terminate a human life.

I feel that getting pregnant from rape is awful, just an awful terrible no good probably worst situation you could EVER be in.

I also feel that taking a human life is awful, just an awful terrible no good situation, especially when the child had nothing to do with it.

^ Either outcome is a ******* shame.

This also crosses my mind; who are the majority of people getting abortions? How many kids don't have homes now? How many of these would have been aborted kids are going to grow up and leech off the welfare system that I have to pay for for the rest of their lives?

I don't really like thinking about it. If my wife was raped and became pregnant...I don't even know how to respond to that. I don't think there is a perfect answer right now.

Here's what I do know, I don't want my tax dollars funding anyone's abortions. I think I read some statistics online a while ago that showed abortions for rape/incest being under 1% of all abortions, but don't quote me on that.

thebigsd said:
This article with appropriate cites seems to back up this claim.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

Then we need to get guns in the hands of these women to prevent being raped.

Tess · Feb 12, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
Then we need to get guns in the hands of these women to prevent being raped.

But Santorum, who would outlaw abortion, didn't make his choice because of rape.

And Paul, with his sanctimonious "states rights" mantra still continues to propose legislation at the FEDERAL level that would outlaw abortion because *he* never had to save a mother's life.

They both make me sick.

CDT COX · Feb 12, 2012

Life starts at conception?

sudden valley gunner · Feb 12, 2012

Tess said:
But Santorum, who would outlaw abortion, didn't make his choice because of rape.

And Paul, with his sanctimonious "states rights" mantra still continues to propose legislation at the FEDERAL level that would outlaw abortion because *he* never had to save a mother's life.

They both make me sick.

I don't like Santorum, my point was simply that females should be armed and was not meant to condone the anti abortion rhetoric.

No Dr. Paul does not propose to outlaw abortion, he proposes not to make it a federal issue, murder isn't a federal issue either its a state issue. What isn't enumerated as a power or authority by the constitution for the Feds to have they shouldn't have.

Federal courts can rule that making abortion illegal is unconstitutional which they have, but this is still up to the states to deal with that not the President or Congress.

CDT COX said:
Life starts at conception?

Simply illogical to me to think a sperm and an egg are not life but the moment they combine they are?

carsontech · Feb 12, 2012

Tess said:
But Santorum, who would outlaw abortion, didn't make his choice because of rape.

And Paul, with his sanctimonious "states rights" mantra still continues to propose legislation at the FEDERAL level that would outlaw abortion because *he* never had to save a mother's life.

They both make me sick.

In defense of Paul, he has, relativity, good reasons for supporting certain "anti-abortion" legislation. He is strongly pro-choice on almost all issues, but since he believes life begins at conception, abortion is an important subject for him. Here are some quotes from Paul...

[video=youtube;oyC6ieSFOFM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyC6ieSFOFM[/video]

Here, Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his residency:

It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.

As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.

If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?

I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.

"In order to 'offset the effects of Roe v. Wade', Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a 'barbaric procedure'.”
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

Tess · Feb 12, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
No Dr. Paul does not propose to outlaw abortion, he proposes not to make it a federal issue, murder isn't a federal issue either its a state issue. What isn't enumerated as a power or authority by the constitution for the Feds to have they shouldn't have.

Sorry, but this is not true. He has submitted at least five times (I looked it up once, but have forgotten the exact number), including twice in ONE congressional session) legislation that would outlaw abortion. Thus, he IS trying to make it a federal issue. He didn't exactly submit those bills to fifty different STATE legislatures.

carsontech · Feb 13, 2012

I would call the legislature Paul voted on as Pro-Life, instead of anti-abortion. For example, a bill that states life starts at conception is different than a bill that, outright, bans any act of abortion. Paul does wants to get the federal government out of criminalizing and making decisions about abortion.

The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

beebobby · Feb 13, 2012

I would think that anyone who is anti-abortion would be pro-contraception. Anything else would be hypocritical.

PistolPackingMomma · Feb 13, 2012

beebobby said:
I would think that anyone who is anti-abortion would be pro-contraception. Anything else would be hypocritical.

Unless you believe that contraceptives are immoral, and some are a method of early abortion, no matter what the box tells you.

Tess · Feb 13, 2012

carsontech said:
I would call the legislature Paul voted on as Pro-Life, instead of anti-abortion. For example, a bill that states life starts at conception is different than a bill that, outright, bans any act of abortion. Paul does wants to get the federal government out of criminalizing and making decisions about abortion.

I too am pro-life.

And pro-choice. Which is different from pro-abortion.

The difference is that I don't propose having the federal government arbitrarily decide when "life" begins, nor getting into my doctor's business. Ron Paul is NOT my gynecologist (thank the gods) and should not be telling me what I can and can't do. All the while preaching "states' rights."

Nor should Santorum.

Neither is qualified to tell a woman WHICH life is more important, even in those cases where two parties can agree on life.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 13, 2012

Tess said:
Sorry, but this is not true. He has submitted at least five times (I looked it up once, but have forgotten the exact number), including twice in ONE congressional session) legislation that would outlaw abortion. Thus, he IS trying to make it a federal issue. He didn't exactly submit those bills to fifty different STATE legislatures.

Interesting because in his own writing he doesn't want the federal government involved.

It's not his job to write to all 50 states. If he feels the constitution doesn't give the government the right to be involved in that issue I happen to agree with the government shouldn't be involved in many issues it is involved in. Like ADA for example, even if I wanted to outlaw "handi parking" I have no say in making it illegal if I was a congress person just the ability to try and get the fed out of it. States can make it their own issue.

Since you state he tried to outlaw it I would like to see those cites. Not that I am calling you out or anything I just have seen different. It would be interesting to see his proposed bills.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 13, 2012

Tess said:
I too am pro-life.

And pro-choice. Which is different from pro-abortion.

The difference is that I don't propose having the federal government arbitrarily decide when "life" begins, nor getting into my doctor's business. Ron Paul is NOT my gynecologist (thank the gods) and should not be telling me what I can and can't do. All the while preaching "states' rights."

Nor should Santorum.

Neither is qualified to tell a woman WHICH life is more important, even in those cases where two parties can agree on life.

I think you and my viewpoints are very close. I don't see anything in this post I can't disagree with. Even the sarcastic parts about Ron Paul, you have the right to choose your doctor. The Feds shouldn't be involved in this issue at all, except maybe The SCOTUS, and then it would be up to the states to comply.

Tess · Feb 13, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
Interesting because in his own writing he doesn't want the federal government involved.

It's not his job to write to all 50 states. If he feels the constitution doesn't give the government the right to be involved in that issue I happen to agree with the government shouldn't be involved in many issues it is involved in. Like ADA for example, even if I wanted to outlaw "handi parking" I have no say in making it illegal if I was a congress person just the ability to try and get the fed out of it. States can make it their own issue.

Since you state he tried to outlaw it I would like to see those cites. Not that I am calling you out or anything I just have seen different. It would be interesting to see his proposed bills.

Perhaps you'll agree that introduction of the bill at the FEDERAL level constitutes a departure from states' rights on the issue. If not, I guess you don't see federal law in the same vein I do."

Without going to Thomas.gov for each year, I take an easier route and offer the wikipedia cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act
"...Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2005 in the 109th United States Congress, 110th United States Congress, and 111th United States Congress."
"...The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[SUP][1]"[/SUP]

This paragraph lists the five times he has introduced it.

beebobby · Feb 13, 2012

If a candidate claims to be pro-life while trying to restrict programs to help at risk children, it tells me they are really just pro-fetus.

marshaul · Feb 13, 2012

georg jetson said:
So if there were no men, there would still be abortions?

No, but the only person who's rights pre-empt those fledging rights of a fetus is the mother and her right to self-ownership.

But, this is where we disagree, because your opposition to abortion bans stems from your conception of children as the absolute chattel of their parents.

Santorum Gnawing On His Foot?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Founder's Club Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran