[Comfortably Numb]

Post away!

[Avatar]

TFTNT, Emily.

Santorum's statement is very worrisome to me - someone goes through the ordeal of being raped, and then they have to carry the rapist's baby inside them for nine months? There's a reason why even the most staunch anti-abortion people usually have an exception for cases of rape and incest - you can't force the poor woman go through yet another ordeal. She's been through enough.

[Cristofle]

I can't believe Santorum actually won a state- this doesn't even seem like a political campaign to me, more like a religious revival.

But regardless, even if you believe abortion is wrong even in the face of rape, do not condescend to rape victims by telling them having a pregnancy forced on them as a result of rape is actually a gift. Some women can handle that, but many can't handle the thought of having their rapist's baby, and for a man to tell them that's not only wrong but criminal not to consider it a blessing in disguise...

[ceilirose]

Santorum doesn't actually believe in artificial contraception IIRC.

This is the story about the Santorums and the experience they went through in 1996:

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/06/kare...e_an_abortion/

[Cristofle]

I'm very sorry for his wife and I don't want to use her medical history to make a political point, but since he did say this to the press:

Rick Santorum did tell the Inquirer that “if that had to be the call, we would have induced labor if we had to,” under the understanding that the fetus was going to die anyway and intervening would save Karen’s life. And it is accurate to say that the direct experience of a life-threatening pregnancy and a tragic loss did not leave Rick Santorum with any empathy for women who do have to make those difficult decisions in extremely murky circumstances.

Why can't he seem to have any compassion for people in similar circumstances?

[ceilirose]

That's the thing - Santorum and his wife had a choice. He would take that choice away from women, their spouses or significant others and leave it up to the Government.

[sunnykerr]

There's so many things wrong with that stance, I think.

You can oppose abortion on the strenght of your principles and still understand that it covers a lot of things and is therefore complicated. For instance, using the example he used, wouldn't it be more humane to have an abortion rather than to give birth to a child whose life will be as brutal and painful as it will be short?

Another scenario would deal with selective reduction. Isn't it better to reduce the number of embryos to ensure a better chance of survival for the remaining embryos rather than risk all of their lives by having too many?

And what about women who have no financial means of supporting themselves? Should the health of the mother be handicapped, perhaps permanently, because she happened to get pregnant?

What about girls who are too young to understand the consequences of drinking and smoking while pregnant? If they don't want to have a child, should they still be forced ot have that child when we know the kind of issues the child will have to face (from the overloaded foster-case system to the inevitable health and behavioural problems from the fetal alcohol and nicotine exposure)?

It's so easy to sit on a principle and say the world is just one way...

I'm not sure I could vote for someone who had that simplistic a worldview.

[Gray Ghost]

Santorum is hardcore with his religious views. Abortion should be legal in the extreme circumstances. I think a lot of people are understanding of abortion in those types of situations. I think some people have a problem with abortion when it comes to the woman just not wanting the baby.

[Comfortably Numb]

Yeah I am more about the legal right under any circumstance.

[Gray Ghost]

Even if the woman is nine months pregnant and the baby and mother are completely healthy?

[Avatar]

Meanwhile, I'm in the third camp - have abortion be legal in the first trimester, i.e. before the fetus would be viable even if born.

[Comfortably Numb]

That's also a reasonable solution. I would be happy if that option was free and accessible to all women.

[Cristofle]

Well, while the cut-off isn't 12 weeks in the United States (and I don't think it should be, necessarily- there is no possible way a 16 week old fetus could survive outside the womb, for example, and 12 weeks is often not enough especially for teenage girls who probably aren't the wisest about whether or not they're pregnant), the cut-off (except in extreme medical circumstances) IS 24 weeks, which is the scientific community's consensus for possible (possible, not likely) viability outside the womb. However, Santorum is even fighting back against that being legal (extreme medical circumstances) despite openly acknowledging he would have chosen to end his wife's pregnancy to save her life if it had come to that. Apparently he deserves the choice, but no one else does.

[Gray Ghost]

Rich women should be allowed to have free abortions? See, I have a problem with that and completely no sympathy at all. I can understand possibly giving free ones to poor women but not rich women. The crap that gets taken out of my paycheck shouldn't be going to some uppity rich women who probably makes 3 to 5 more times than I make so she can get a freebie from Uncle Sam. If they can afford it, make them pay.

[Avatar]

Well, I'd rather subsidize an 'uppity rich woman' if that means that a poor woman gets the same access than the other way around.