Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

[RandFan]

What is it that I've denied that you think I meant?

Do you accept the following:

The availability and acceptance of cheating on the basis of homosexual identity (be true to yourself!) or oversexed culture (everybody does it!) contributes to marital infidelity.

A culture hostile to family values will have fewer healthy, functioning families.

If so do you have any evidence?

 

[RandFan]

Santorum's hypocrisy.

Santorum’s wife’s abortion was different, you see.

Even for rape. Even for incest. Even for saving the mother’s life. None of them justify abortion in Rick Santorum’s world.
Unless it happens to be Rick Santorum’s wife, and she might have died if not for her 20-week-old fetus being “partial birth” aborted. That’s different. Because, you know, that’s JUSTIFIED. Unlike all those other mothers.

I can't express myself strongly enough how much this man disgusts me.

 

[RandFan]

This is where I have a problem.

First you say it is perhaps reasonable to curtail freedom.

I'll admit that I generally disagree with Santorum in this area. BUT, I'm not sure it's necessarily unreasonable to curtail parents' freedom when it comes to activities that negatively affect their children.

When I challenge you on that you disavow that you hold those views you only are trying to explain Santorum's view.

I am not a social conservative.

Way too many people in this thread are acting like I agree with Santorum because I'm trying to explain his views. I thought you, at least, knew better.

So, which is it?

 

[AvalonXQ]

What a terrible article. Here are the facts.

Karen was in her 19th week of pregnancy. Husband and wife were in a suburban Virginia office for a routine sonogram when a radiologist told them that the fetus Karen was carrying had a fatal defect and was going to die.

After consulting with specialists, who offered several options including abortion, the Santorums decided on long-shot intrauterine surgery to correct an obstruction of the urinary tract called posterior urethral valve syndrome.

A few days later, rare “bladder shunt” surgery was performed at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. The incision in the womb carried a high risk of infection.

Two days later, at home in the Pittsburgh suburb of Verona, Karen Santorum became feverish. Her Philadelphia doctors instructed her to hurry to Pittsburgh’s Magee-Women’s Hospital, which has a unit specializing in high-risk pregnancies.

<strong>After examining Karen, who was nearly incoherent with a 105-degree fever, a doctor at Magee led Santorum into the hallway outside her room and said that she had an intrauterine infection and some type of medical intervention was necessary. Unless the source of the infection, the fetus, was removed from Karen’s body, she would likely die.

At minimum, the doctor said, Karen had to be given antibiotics intravenously or she might go into septic shock and die.

The Santorums were at a crossroads.

Once they agreed to use antibiotics, they believed they were committing to delivery of the fetus, which they knew would most likely not survive outside the womb.</strong>

“The doctors said they were talking about a matter of hours or a day or two before risking sepsis and both of them might die,” Santorum said. “Obviously, if it was a choice of whether both Karen and the child are going to die or just the child is going to die, I mean it’s a pretty easy call.”

Shivering under heated blankets in Magee’s labor and delivery unit as her body tried to reject the source of the infection, Karen felt cramping from early labor.

Santorum agreed to start his wife on intravenous antibiotics “to buy her some time,” he said.

The antibiotics brought Karen’s fever down. The doctor suggested a drug to accelerate her labor.

“The cramps were labor, and she was going to get into more active labor,” Santorum said. “Karen said, `We’re not inducing labor, that’s an abortion. No way. That isn’t going to happen. I don’t care what happens.’ ”

As her fever subsided, Karen – a former neonatal intensive-care nurse – asked for something to stop the labor. Her doctors refused, Santorum recalled, citing malpractice concerns.

Santorum said her labor proceeded without having to induce an abortion.

Karen, a soft-spoken red-haired 37-year-old, said that “ultimately” she would have agreed to intervention for the sake of her other children.

“If the physician came to me and said if we don’t deliver your baby in one hour you will be dead, yeah, I would have to do it,” she said. “But for me, it was at the very end. I would never make a decision like that until all other means had been thoroughly exhausted.”

The fetus was delivered at 20 weeks, at least a month shy of what most doctors consider viability.

In the months after the birth and death of Gabriel Michael Santorum, rumors began circulating in the Pennsylvania medical community that Karen Santorum had undergone an abortion. Those rumors found their way to The Inquirer, prompting the questions that led to this article.

“There are a lot of people who aren’t big fans of Rick Santorum,” the senator said of the rumors. “You’re a public figure, and you’re out there. Maybe it accomplishes a political purpose”…

It's clear that Karen took a number of medical risks rather than having an abortion. She even refused to induce labor, risking sepsis. She eventually miscarried.

I don't see how you can know the facts of this and consider their position on abortion to be at all hypocritical. If anything, they have personally experienced the very worst situation, and have made every choice in the direction of respecting the life of the unborn child.

The more things about the Santorums I'm exposed to, the less disrespect I feel for them.

I still don't think I'd vote for him, but it's a lot closer question now than it was before I started exploring links on this thread.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So, which is it?

The latter.

I am not a social conservative, other than in opposing abortion. I'm not a conservative on sexual or religious issues. I'm opposed to government intervention on these issues.

 

[LashL]

LashL was making the point that it was unfair to condemn Activity A (extramarital sex) without first considering the significant fraction of Activity A that is not harmful to anyone. I was pointing out that we already condemn other activities like Activity X (drunk driving) based on the severity of the rare harmful events and without first considering the signifcant fraction of Activity X that is not harmful to anyone.

It appears that either you have misinterpreted my point or that I have failed to express it clearly so, for the record, let me try to set it out more succinctly.

You seem to be assuming that consenting adults engaging in sexual activity with other consenting adults other than a spouse or significant other are "cheating" but that is simply not true. Consenting adults the world over engage in sexual activities with people other than spouses/significant others consensually, with no "cheating" involved.Some of them are married or have significant others and engage in sexual activity with others consensually with the full knowledge and consent of their spouses or significant others, whether that be one other, two others, three others, or a dozen others, who knows? Many other consenting adults the world over do not have spouses or significant others at all, and they engage in consensual sexual activity with others, whether that be one other, two others, three others, or a dozen others, who knows? There is nothing wrong, in any of those circumstances, with consenting adults engaging in consensual adult sexual activity. The gender of the parties also doesn't matter in any of these circumstances. When it comes to consensual sexual activity, there is no rational basis for governmental intervention in the bedrooms of the nation, regardless of the gender of the parties or the number of the parties.

"Drunk driving" has nothing at all to do with this and the analogy that you keep trying to tie this to or liken it to is just plain silly.

Sexual activity between consenting adults (in private) is not something that governments should be concerning themselves with, and - in my view - any politician who seeks to criticize sex 'outside of marriage' as 'perverted' or similar, and/or who seeks to marginalize or criminalize those who participate in same-sex sexual activity, and/or who seeks to claim that any sexual activity with someone other than a spouse or significant other is prima facie "cheating" is a complete and utter moron. It also seems to me that open and honest expression and discussion of sexuality is important in any relationship, and that this is far preferable to the close-minded and bigoted nonsense of the past. As Hawk One mentioned above, such open discussion and expression, particularly between married folks and/or significant others on such matters is a positive, not a negative. The world doesn't need more bigotry; it needs less.

I hope that helps to make my position clearer if you didn't understand it previously.

 

[RandFan]

What a terrible article. Here are the facts.



It's clear that Karen took a number of medical risks rather than having an abortion. She even refused to induce labor, risking sepsis. She eventually miscarried.

I don't see how you can know the facts of this and consider their position on abortion to be at all hypocritical. If anything, they have personally experienced the very worst situation, and have made every choice in the direction of respecting the life of the unborn child.

The more things about the Santorums I'm exposed to, the less disrespect I feel for them.

I still don't think I'd vote for him, but it's a lot closer question now than it was before I started exploring links on this thread.

Hold on. Screwed up again.

“The doctors said they were talking about a matter of hours or a day or two before risking sepsis and both of them might die,” Santorum said. “Obviously, if it was a choice of whether both Karen and the child are going to die or just the child is going to die, I mean it’s a pretty easy call.”

No. I DESPISE THE MAN.

How many women struggle with their decision and Rick doesn't give a **** about them. A mass of cells is more important than their lives.

Rape? Screw you.
Incest? Screw you.
Already have children and don't know how you will take care of the other children? Screw you.
Health of the mother? He makes no exceptions. PLEASE to post the quote where he makes exceptions? Please?

Let me say that again,

I despise this man.

I'm sorry I misread your post at first. I thought it had said she risked her life for delivery. Look, good for them. I'm glad they had a choice. Santorum wants to make certain no one else has a choice.

 

[fuelair]

Hold on. Screwed up again.
No. I DESPISE THE MAN.

How many women struggle with their decision and Rick doesn't give a **** about them. A mass of cells is more important than their lives.

Rape? Screw you.
Incest? Screw you.
Already have children and don't know how you will take care of the other children? Screw you.
Health of the mother? He makes no exceptions. PLEASE to post the quote where he makes exceptions? Please?

Let me say that again,

I despise this man.

I'm sorry I misread your post at first. I thought it had said she risked her life for delivery. Look, good for them. I'm glad they had a choice. Santorum wants to make certain no one else has a choice.

Just keep reminding yourself: "Santorum is just a frothy mixture of...." and you'll feel much better about it!! Dan Savage got it right!!

 

[AvalonXQ]

No. I DESPISE THE MAN.

And I no longer do.

I expect this thread is a net win for the guy.

Good day.

 

[RandFan]

And I no longer do.

Yet you can't say why?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is it that I've denied that you think I meant?

So now it's game playing?

I repeat, so what if sex is or isn't more accessible? Your claim that "A culture hostile to family values will have fewer healthy, functioning families" is the problem smacks of blaming someone/thing other than the person who made the choice.


BTW, your suggestion drunk driving has a low total risk is absurd. Measuring the number of incidents per miles driven drunk ignores the severity of the incidents. So once again your values contrast with others in this thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't express myself strongly enough how much this man disgusts me.

Much as I agree with your sentiment, if we take the description of the fetal death as described, it was a spontaneous miscarriage, not an induced abortion.

 

[RandFan]

Much as I agree with your sentiment, if we take the description of the fetal death as described, it was a spontaneous miscarriage, not an induced abortion.

When I first red the story that was the way I understood it. But it says they we're given a choice to have a procedure that would likey cause the abortion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When I first red the story that was the way I understood it. But it says they we're given a choice to have a procedure that would likey cause the abortion.

What procedure was that? The way I read it the infection caused the premature labor.

 

[Robert Prey]

Are you trying to claim that the ~8000 new infections in women from hetereosexual sex were all caused by the woman sleeping with a bi-sexual man?

I don't know what sample you are referring to, but in the US it's not sleeping with, but being an anal receptor, or sharing needles, or sex with open STDs or other sores.

 

[Robert Prey]

Just what did I say that was factually incorrect? You linked to a US data report. It agrees with what I said.

Did you miss this from the beginning of your link?

Worldwide:

So you were referring to world wide where anal sex is far more rampant for a number of reasons. I was referring to US stats where hetero is by far the lessor, and not caused by monogamous hetero sex but women who engage with a bi partner or share needles.

 

[Robert Prey]

you totally ignored my post before repeating the bigoted stuff.
anal sex is no more dangerous trhan vaginal sex.
many hetero couple also enjoy anal sex.
and as i said, many queers do not take part in either, and oral sex and manual sex are much safer.
there is no truth to your claim that queers are more dangerous than straights.
drop the ignorance and lies.

That is so hopelessly mis-informed that I must conclude your views are simply rooted in the river of D'Nile and thus, not subject to correction.

 

[L.Y.S.]

That is so hopelessly mis-informed that I must conclude your views are simply rooted in the river of D'Nile and thus, not subject to correction.

How is it in "D'Nile"? Do you have actual scientific evidence that suggests his claims are either false or misrepresented? And yes many people do enjoy anal sex, this is a fact.

 

[RandFan]

What procedure was that? The way I read it the infection caused the premature labor.

The use of antibiotics.

 

[joobz]

I don't know what sample you are referring to, but in the US it's not sleeping with, but being an anal receptor, or sharing needles, or sex with open STDs or other sores.

You didn't answer the question.
You seem to believe that women only get aids by sleeping with Bi-sexual men.

You even repeat this assertion.

So you were referring to world wide where anal sex is far more rampant for a number of reasons. I was referring to US stats where hetero is by far the lessor, and not caused by monogamous hetero sex but women who engage with a bi partner or share needles.

How do you explain the spread of aids in Africa?
Are all the men in africa Bisexual?