Perhaps, but Santorum keeps feeding the media beast. On Face the Nation Sunday, he defended his slam that President Obama has a “phony theology” not “based on the Bible,” criticized prenatal testing as leading to more abortions, and said the president “has a very bad record on the issue of abortion and on children who are disabled in the womb.” He can hardly fault Bob Schieffer for devoting most of the interview to his divisive words.
http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-trial-media-045410662.html

Look who is calling the kettle black!!!!!

Santorum: Our abortion was different

“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.”

Rick Santorum is one dangerously confused denialist. The former Pennsylvania Senator and presidential aspirant is best known for his inability to associate his professed compassion for life at the level of the zygote, with the physical realities of human sexuality. He has equated loving same-sex relationships to bestiality. He is opposed to abortion under any circumstance. Almost.

In October, 1996, his wife Karen had a second trimester abortion. They don’t like to describe it that way. In his 2004 interview with Terry Gross, Santorum characterizes the fetus, who must be treated as an autonomous person, as a practically a gunslinging threat, whom the mother must murder in self-defense. Karen has had to justify her decision to save her own life by explaining that if she died her other children would have lost a mother.

http://oursilverribbon.org/blog/?p=188

In the 19th week of her pregnancy, Karen discovered during a routine exam that the fetus she was carrying had a fatal defect and was going to die inside of her. A long-shot surgery was performed that required cutting directly into the womb. It carried a high risk of infection and was performed not to save the fetus, but to reduce Karen’s complication while she attempted to go full term.

:Once the Santorums had agreed to the use of antibiotics, they believed they were committing to delivery of the fetus, which they knew would not survive outside the womb.”

They knew the child would not survive if Karen took the antibiotics. And they agreed to the antibiotics which induced labor. The Santorum’s knew that the antibiotics would induce labor and the child would die. What is the difference between the morning after pill which causes the child to leave the womb and the antibiotics that Karen took? The fact is the Santorum’s knew that the antibiotics would induce labor and the child would die.

http://early-onset-of-night.tumblr.com/post/6502308112/our-abortion...

Views: 54

Comment

You need to be a member of Arapahoe Tea Party to add comments!

Join Arapahoe Tea Party

Comment by reform on March 6, 2012 at 3:34pm

Cathy, This is what the Santorum family is saying. Without the actual medical records or someone from the medical field that actual was there during the time speaking out, who knows what the truth is. Unfortunately, we have to go by what the Santorum family says. Through prenatal tests, they did know that there may be something wrong with the baby. She did have the surgery, not for the benefit of the child, but for Karen to have an easier pregnancy. She did know ahead of time that it had a very high risk of infection. She did know that the antibiotics would induce labor. (These are the Santorum families words.)
The thing that the democrats will stress loudly is the right that the Santorum used technology to determine the health of a baby in the womb. And now the Santorum family is advocating that there should be not testing because it results in more deaths of unborn children.
When Dr. Paul went to the hospital to observe a birthing room he spoke of an aborted child that was taken from the mother and thrown in the trash can. Everyone in the room ignored the baby crying in the trash can. That is an abortion. Although, the Santorum's would claim it is not an abortion. The baby was alive when it was removed from the womb.

I have already given several links to the Santorum position.
Go to this and read and watch Ron Paul.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-paul-relives-witnessing-late-te...

Comment by Cathy Mitchell on March 1, 2012 at 4:07pm

I don't understand why you think that, "the antibiotics would induce labor and the child would die"? An infection in the uterus could cause premature labor, which is likely what happened. If anything, antibiotics might stop labor if it cured the infection.

Comment by Randy B Corporon on February 21, 2012 at 9:49pm

It depends upon what you believe it means to be Conservative and a practicing, believing Catholic.

Comment by reform on February 21, 2012 at 9:36pm

I guess we were not watching the same video.

Comment by Randy B Corporon on February 21, 2012 at 8:51pm

I watched the entire Santorum interview on Face the Nation.  Santorum's words weren't the least bit divisive.  He was consistent, compassionate, and appropriate.  His beliefs, whether one agrees with them or not, are well-founded, deeply -held, and accurately and effectively articulated.  This ridiculous attack on a 1996 pregnancy is both shallow, inaccurate and seems desperate.  This poster in a prior post linked to a Ron Paul supporter's web site.  Nothing wrong with that, of course, but one can certainly question the motives and perspective or, at least, neutrality of the comments.  We all have situations in life where there are nothing but bad choices, or where wrong choices get made. But, it is disingenuous to argue that Santorum's beliefs are anything other then legitimate.  It is why he continues to gain ground.  Whether people agree with him or not, they can tell instinctively and objectively that he means what he says.

© 2017   Created by Chairman's Committee.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service