Santorum: Our Abortion Was Different! Different!!

Take a look around the web, Rob. It's not quite like the blog you linked says.
 
Everything I'm reading suggests they did induce labor.

See, I read that the doctors wanted to give her drugs to induce labour, and she refused them.
The fact that the antibiotic treatment may have triggered her contractions initially does not equate to induced contractions.
 
I know that, but RDS did not say spontaneous abortion, he said late-term abortion. Which is incorrect.

My butt is cold today, it's 2.1 degrees here!

I keep forgetting that your winter is going on. You need a butt sweater?


Oh, and for anyone who can't google, here's a salon piece:

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/06/karen_santorum_did_not_have_an_abortion/

“Based on what is presented here in these couple of pages, it looks to me as if there’s confusion with some people about what the word ‘abortion’ means,” the doctor told me today. “The word ‘abortion’ probably shouldn’t even be used in this context.” (It is technically correct to say that Karen Santorum had a septic spontaneous abortion, but that’s a medical term for an involuntary event that is different from “induced abortion,” which describes a willful termination.)

After rumors spread in Pennsylvania that Karen Santorum had an abortion, the Philadelphia Inquirer spoke to the Santorums for a story that has served as the main source for the recent chatter. In the 19th week of pregnancy, the paper reported, “a radiologist told them that the fetus Karen was carrying had a fatal defect and was going to die.” They opted for a “bladder shunt” surgery that led to an intrauterine infection and a high fever. The Santorums were told that “unless the source of the infection, the fetus, was removed from Karen’s body, she would likely die.”

The confusion partly stems from the following sentence: “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.” Santorum did go into labor, and Gabriel Michael Santorum died within a couple of hours.

The physician I spoke to strongly disputed that characterization of what was at stake. “She did not have an induction of labor,” the doctor said. “She was in spontaneous labor because of the severe infection. The use of antibiotics in no way augments labor nor does it initiate contractions in any way, shape or form.” In fact, sometimes the opposite is true, and antibiotics can help forestall labor.
 
using a his wife's miscarriage to score political points is skeezy.

It really depends on finding out what the details are. If it's a miscarriage and nothing the doctors or Santorums did in anyway caused the miscarriage then it's one thing. (It's still creepy as hell that he took it home. I want mentally stable leaders and that strikes me as something just shy of Comic Book Crazy.) If they did however it shows a clear case of hypocricy. Very few people would argue that if he did get an abortion under those circumstances that he/they made the right call, but it comes around to him wanting to take even that choice away from people.
 
"Hi. I am a moron who cares about this issue. Trillions of dollars have been stolen out of the system by criminals who own the politicians, but I focus on trivia. Wars are going on that are killing thousands of innocent women and children, but I am retarded and eat my TV media."

Fuck you.
 
using a his wife's miscarriage to score political points is skeezy.

So is naming assjuice after him. So what? Against the Santorums of this world, all methods are good. (As young Churchill once said of the Bolsheviks.)

Of course, nobody really needs to score any points on him, at this point there's no way he can get the nomination. But watching him stay in it 'til August and try to fight it out on the convention floor will be good for a whole lotta larfs! :D
 
Last edited:
It really depends on finding out what the details are. If it's a miscarriage and nothing the doctors or Santorums did in anyway caused the miscarriage then it's one thing. (It's still creepy as hell that he took it home. I want mentally stable leaders and that strikes me as something just shy of Comic Book Crazy.) If they did however it shows a clear case of hypocricy. Very few people would argue that if he did get an abortion under those circumstances that he/they made the right call, but it comes around to him wanting to take even that choice away from people.
actually it's perfectly normal and quite common for parents to want to spend time with a still born child. have a chance to hold it and say goodbye.

i'm still confused as to how her private, confidential medical problems are fair game. the last time i checked, women were no longer considered their husband's chattels and she had the right to choose her treatment whether he consented or not.

unless she's in office and making the legislation then her morals are not an issue here.
 
Assuming she'd had the abortion and Rick Santorum didn't divorce her I think it's a fair statement to say we are judging him on his morals. Not to mention you are clearly judged to some extent and should be, by the company you keep.
 
Assuming she'd had the abortion and Rick Santorum didn't divorce her I think it's a fair statement to say we are judging him on his morals. Not to mention you are clearly judged to some extent and should be, by the company you keep.

Do people like you beat your head with rocks every day to make you this stupid? I seriously wonder.
 
if he believes divorce is a sin then no.
he's bound to her in the eyes of god.
...unless he was warned about this before his wedding day.

and that's still assuming she was induced.

mostly it looks like people are getting a gleeful thrill from dragging up the memories of her baby dying inside her, because they're perfectly willing to throw aside their own morality to facilitate poking holes in his.
 
Let's not shilly-shally here folks...an abortion is an abortion, no exceptions.
Thus spake Santorum! :)
 
if he believes divorce is a sin then no.
he's bound to her in the eyes of god.
...unless he was warned about this before his wedding day.

and that's still assuming she was induced.

mostly it looks like people are getting a gleeful thrill from dragging up the memories of her baby dying inside her, because they're perfectly willing to throw aside their own morality to facilitate poking holes in his.

I grant you that's assuming she was induced. That is an important detail in the story. If she didn't then the point is moot other than to ask if it really had come down to it would he really have let his wife die, effectively so they could be holier than thou. It's not like somehow her death would allow the baby to live and thus could be considered a noble act. This would have just been needless death and would he force his morality on the rest of the nation. Those are important things to know about a man that we could potentially put in charge of the country.
 
Back
Top