Rick Santorum Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Zelare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jezebel is a known pro abortion website, and this is low even for them to start a malicious rumor.

Karen Santorum Did Not Have An Abortion and Rick Santorum Did Not “Authorize” One

Now that Rick Santorum has had his big political success in Iowa, the knives have come out. There is a story being circulated that this champion of life authorized an “abortion” for his wife Karen. The term “abortion” is not always understood. I have lost a child to miscarriage myself, but the doctor did not put “miscarriage” on the paperwork about it. He used the term “spontaneous abortion” even though the child died naturally, as did Gabriel Santorum, one of the sons of Rick and Karen Santorum. When we are speaking about abortion in the context of law, not medicine, the term “abortion” refers to willful and direct intentional killing of an unborn child in the womb.

Read “Gabriel’s Story” by Karen Santorum.
Code:
[INDENT]I am married to United States Senator Rick Santorum, who in 1996 led the debate on a bill to ban partial-birth abortion—which even several pro-choice senators refer to as “infanticide”. The procedure is justified by its advocates as necessary in cases of fetal abnormalities detected late in pregnancy. They implied that Rick had no right to speak on the issue because it had not not touched his life.

One week later at a routine sonogram, the 20 week old baby in my womb was diagnosed with a defect that is always fatal without surgery. Through our immense heartache came the most basic of parental emotions: We had to save our child. After many tests it was determined our son was eligible for the operation that could save his life. It was a success, but an infection developed in the amniotic sac, and I was rushed to the hospital with a high fever, having contractions. I begged the doctors to stop my labor, but they said it would be malpractice, for I would surely die since these infections are untreatable.

Gabriel Michael Santorum was born at 12:45 AM on Friday, October 11, 1996. He was a beautiful boy. He did not give a cry or open his tiny eyes. We baptized him, bundled him, and held him ever so close. We sang to him, held his little hands and kissed him. Gabriel lived for two hours. In those two hours something simple but profound happened. Rick and I became parents to a newborn baby and welcomed him into our family. That was all….but it was everything. His life was so brief, yet his impact so great. In two hours we experienced a lifetime of emotions. Love, sorrow, regret, joy—-all were packed into that brief span. To have rejected that experience would have been to reject life itself.
There is no truth to the claim that “Karen Santorum had an abortion”. There is also no truth to the claim that Rick Santorum “authorized an abortion” for his wife. He has said that he would have agreed to inducing labor if it had been necessary to save his wife’s life. Inducing labor to save the life of a woman is in no way, shape or form “abortion”. Abortion is the willful and direct intentional killing of an unborn child.

Even beyond the practice of inducing labor, the removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not “abortion” in that the direct action is to remove a part of the mother’s body with the intention of saving her life. The death of the child is unintentional and indirect and is, therefore, not abortion. In like manner, removal of a cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman is not “abortion” because the intent is to remove a part of the woman’s body, not to kill the child.

Willful and direct killing, including the willful and direct killing in every abortion, is murder. It is the ultimate rejection of life. The story of Rick and Karen Santorum and their son Gabriel is, to the contrary, a story of ultimate openness to life. It is for this reason that they were awarded the Poverello Medal, the highest non-academic award given by the orthodox Catholic university Franciscan University of Steubenville.
[/INDENT]

lisagraas.com/blog/2012/01/04/karen-santorum-did-not-have-an-abortion-and-rick-santorum-did-not-authorize-one/
 
Was watching a well known news show host talk to one of the presidential candidates and they touched on abortion and contraception. Apparently having anti-contraception and pro-life views are seen as “radical”. Wanting life is radical? I almost had to say that to myself a few times to let that sink in. When did murder become the norm and for life become the “radical” view???

Also I noted that this host quoted a stat that 98% of the population including 98% of catholics are for artificial contrception? I haven’t been able to find any facts about this and I know some catholics are confused about this but 98%???

I never knew I was the radical???
 
Jezebel is a known pro abortion website, and this is low even for them to start a malicious rumor.

Karen Santorum Did Not Have An Abortion and Rick Santorum Did Not “Authorize” One

Now that Rick Santorum has had his big political success in Iowa, the knives have come out. There is a story being circulated that this champion of life authorized an “abortion” for his wife Karen. The term “abortion” is not always understood. I have lost a child to miscarriage myself, but the doctor did not put “miscarriage” on the paperwork about it. He used the term “spontaneous abortion” even though the child died naturally, as did Gabriel Santorum, one of the sons of Rick and Karen Santorum. When we are speaking about abortion in the context of law, not medicine, the term “abortion” refers to willful and direct intentional killing of an unborn child in the womb.

Read “Gabriel’s Story” by Karen Santorum.
Code:
[INDENT]I am married to United States Senator Rick Santorum, who in 1996 led the debate on a bill to ban partial-birth abortion—which even several pro-choice senators refer to as “infanticide”. The procedure is justified by its advocates as necessary in cases of fetal abnormalities detected late in pregnancy. They implied that Rick had no right to speak on the issue because it had not not touched his life.

One week later at a routine sonogram, the 20 week old baby in my womb was diagnosed with a defect that is always fatal without surgery. Through our immense heartache came the most basic of parental emotions: We had to save our child. After many tests it was determined our son was eligible for the operation that could save his life. It was a success, but an infection developed in the amniotic sac, and I was rushed to the hospital with a high fever, having contractions. I begged the doctors to stop my labor, but they said it would be malpractice, for I would surely die since these infections are untreatable.

Gabriel Michael Santorum was born at 12:45 AM on Friday, October 11, 1996. He was a beautiful boy. He did not give a cry or open his tiny eyes. We baptized him, bundled him, and held him ever so close. We sang to him, held his little hands and kissed him. Gabriel lived for two hours. In those two hours something simple but profound happened. Rick and I became parents to a newborn baby and welcomed him into our family. That was all….but it was everything. His life was so brief, yet his impact so great. In two hours we experienced a lifetime of emotions. Love, sorrow, regret, joy—-all were packed into that brief span. To have rejected that experience would have been to reject life itself.
There is no truth to the claim that “Karen Santorum had an abortion”. There is also no truth to the claim that Rick Santorum “authorized an abortion” for his wife. He has said that he would have agreed to inducing labor if it had been necessary to save his wife’s life. Inducing labor to save the life of a woman is in no way, shape or form “abortion”. Abortion is the willful and direct intentional killing of an unborn child.

Even beyond the practice of inducing labor, the removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not “abortion” in that the direct action is to remove a part of the mother’s body with the intention of saving her life. The death of the child is unintentional and indirect and is, therefore, not abortion. In like manner, removal of a cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman is not “abortion” because the intent is to remove a part of the woman’s body, not to kill the child.

Willful and direct killing, including the willful and direct killing in every abortion, is murder. It is the ultimate rejection of life. The story of Rick and Karen Santorum and their son Gabriel is, to the contrary, a story of ultimate openness to life. It is for this reason that they were awarded the Poverello Medal, the highest non-academic award given by the orthodox Catholic university Franciscan University of Steubenville.
[/INDENT]

lisagraas.com/blog/2012/01/04/karen-santorum-did-not-have-an-abortion-and-rick-santorum-did-not-authorize-one/
Thank you for posting that. Reading that story brought me to tears…as a father of 3 small boys, I can’t even begin to imagine what the Santorum’s went through. It’s disgusting when I think of how low people can be to attack Rick Santorum and his family in this way.
 
Did Republicans make a mistake when they sided with freeing the slaves?

Democrats are on the side of legal murder through abortion, one day they will look back in deep shame and wonder what their fellow Democratic brethren were thinking of during this age of legal killing of the unborn
I think the civil war had a little more to do with “preserving the union” and a nasty tariff dispute between north and south, than it did with “freeing the slaves”. In his first inagural address, Lincoln said that he had no intention to interfere with Southern slavery, and that even if he did, it would be unconstitutional to do so. Lincoln was perfectly willing to see Southern slavery persist long past his own lifetime, for all he knew, as long as the Southern states remained in the Union and continued to pay federal taxes. Lincoln clearly stated the real cause and purpose of the war on numerous occassions, including his famous Aug. 22, 1862 newsletter to Horace Greely. There he wrote, “My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery.” His objective was to destroy the secession movement by force of arms, period.

Imagine that Texas seceded from the union (as Rick Perry suggested they do) and an American president responded with the carpet bombing of Dallas, Houston, and Austin that destroyed 90 percent of those cities. Would such an American president be considered a “great statesman” or a war criminal?

In 1861, every West Point graduate was familiar with the rules of conduct for fighting a just war that had existed since the Middle Ages, and prohibited making war on civilians. The U.S. Army Commander, General Halleck, had written his famous Order No. 12, outlawing the wanton destruction of private property later embraced by Lincoln under Sherman and Sheridan. To British historian B.H. Liddell Hart, the code of civilized warfare in Europe for two hundred years was first broken by Lincoln with his policy of directing the destruction of civilian life in the South. Lincoln’s “policy was in many ways the prototype of modern total war.”

But I have to agree with you 100% regarding the Democrat party being the party of death and I would add that any nation that legalizes murder has already signed its own death sentence.
 
i saw the same interview. i dropped Mr. O’ Reilly a note with a link to this:
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/01/prophetic-pope-paul-vi-and-consequences.html

and this:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

I also asked him, in all humility and Charity, to use his public platform to further the teaching of The Church, rather than to weaken it by publicly disparaging someone who at least espouses to believe and accept the Church’s Precepts.
 
Actually, since it’s conservative, he should’ve said reactionary. but, then again, apparently being against BOTH abortion and gay marriage makes you an extreme right-wing social conservative (that’s what I saw on a leftist blog).
 
What’s astonishing is how quickly this thread has morphed from Rick-Santorum-hates-the-Constitution to a cheerleading section for Ron Paul.
I’m not surprised at all, he beat Paul in Iowa and they are pissed off about it, so hey let’s just make up stuff like the falsehood that Paul is “more pro life” than Santorum.

Not sure who they think they are foolin’
 
I think _Abyssinia did a fine job of setting the record straight. It isn’t often that when an original poster violates forum rules with an invalid “news source”, it works out in the end to the good of the forum.
 
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? 13
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.” 14
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
I
n your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
Lincoln was quite clear…he did not directly assail slavery.

John
 
I’m not surprised at all, he beat Paul in Iowa and they are pissed off about it, so hey let’s just make up stuff like the falsehood that Paul is “more pro life” than Santorum.

Not sure who they think they are foolin’
How could someone like Rick Santorum who supported that unjust, preemptive, unconstitutional war in Iraq, possibly be considered “pro-life?” How could someone like Rick Santorum who is currently warmongering his way to the top of the Republican ticket (as evidenced by his ignorant exchanges with Ron Paul in the debates) by shilling for a war in Iran and by pandering to the war-crazy Evangelicals, possibly be considered “pro-life?”

You do realize that “pro-life” covers not only beginning of life and end of life, but everything in between?
 
was watching a well known news show host talk to one of the presidential candidates and they touched on abortion and contraception. Apparently having anti-contraception and pro-life views are seen as “radical”. Wanting life is radical? I almost had to say that to myself a few times to let that sink in. When did murder become the norm and for life become the “radical” view???

Also i noted that this host quoted a stat that 98% of the population including 98% of catholics are for artificial contrception? I haven’t been able to find any facts about this and i know some catholics are confused about this but 98%???

I never knew i was the radical???
WHERE IS THE LINK!?

You don’t even cite the name! 😃
 
I absolutely agree 🙂 but our attempts require prudence. For reasons I have noted, I believe aiming for leaving social issues to the states is more prudent than trying to get federal bans. Simply my best judgement.
Even getting them to the states would be a huge victory.
 
Was watching a well known news show host talk to one of the presidential candidates and they touched on abortion and contraception. Apparently having anti-contraception and pro-life views are seen as “radical”. Wanting life is radical? I almost had to say that to myself a few times to let that sink in. When did murder become the norm and for life become the “radical” view???

Also I noted that this host quoted a stat that 98% of the population including 98% of catholics are for artificial contrception? I haven’t been able to find any facts about this and I know some catholics are confused about this but 98%???

I never knew I was the radical???
It depends on your point of view. Lol, but no we are not radical. I think that there is concern over some poor implementation of pro life laws in several states. For example GA has about 60 women in prison for having had miscarriages, yet no proof the women harmed their babies. But evidently being black, poor, and having a poor life style choice is a crime in GA. In a Hospital women have been allowed to die, forbidden from medical treatment like Chemo Therapy and other life saving drugs because of poorly interpreted pro life values.
 
lol, so I guess I’m a radical right wing extremist now.

Wooo…scary. 👍
 
But I have to agree with you 100% regarding the Democrat party being the party of death and I would add that any nation that legalizes murder has already signed its own death sentence.
Exactly.
 
How could someone like Rick Santorum who supported that unjust, preemptive, unconstitutional war in Iraq, possibly be considered “pro-life?” How could someone like Rick Santorum who is currently warmongering his way to the top of the Republican ticket (as evidenced by his ignorant exchanges with Ron Paul in the debates) by shilling for a war in Iran and by pandering to the war-crazy Evangelicals, possibly be considered “pro-life?”

You do realize that “pro-life” covers not only beginning of life and end of life, but everything in between?
He is not trying to get a war with Iran–the exact opposite actually.

As for Iraq, the left also supported the war because at the time the evidence looked convincing. So, if you want to call out Santorum, than call out everyone else who supported the war.
 
How could someone like Rick Santorum who supported that unjust, preemptive, unconstitutional war in Iraq, possibly be considered “pro-life?” How could someone like Rick Santorum who is currently warmongering his way to the top of the Republican ticket (as evidenced by his ignorant exchanges with Ron Paul in the debates) by shilling for a war in Iran and by pandering to the war-crazy Evangelicals, possibly be considered “pro-life?”

You do realize that “pro-life” covers not only beginning of life and end of life, but everything in between?
If you insist on making up your own definitions of commonly used words and phrases, then pro-choice should cover beginning, end, and in between, meaning that pro-choice should be pro-choice Death Penalty and pro-choice School Vouchers.

So who’s really pro-choice?

Disclaimer: I don’t agree with Santorum’s position on war.
 
It depends on your point of view. Lol, but no we are not radical. I think that there is concern over some poor implementation of pro life laws in several states. For example GA has about 60 women in prison for having had miscarriages, yet no proof the women harmed their babies. But evidently being black, poor, and having a poor life style choice is a crime in GA. In a Hospital women have been allowed to die, forbidden from medical treatment like Chemo Therapy and other life saving drugs because of poorly interpreted pro life values.
Being black increases your chance of miscarriage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top