Rick Santorum Thread

[Dan_Daly]

I guess Ron Paul’s stellar 56% Pro-Life voting record (by the National Right to Life Committee) makes him “the” Pro-Life candidate, including:

-His vote opposing the Pro-Life measure restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions (twice)
-His vote against the Pro-Life measure making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime (twice)
-His vote against the Pro-Life measure forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research
-His vote not to ban assisted suicide
sources:
issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm#06n-NRLC
euthanasia.com/page6.html

I guess for him, states rights supersede the unalienable right to Life.

It is an interesting and important argument to have. Questioning Paul’s tactics does not automatically mean questioning his belief on the sanctity of life.

Look at slavery. It was dealt with at the state level. Certain states allowed it and others did not. It was ultimately dealt with at a national level by a constitutional ammendment, but if individual states had not been able to make it illegal, it seems clear that slavery would have been legal everywhere longer.

If states were allowed to make abortion illegal, it would be illegal in some states. Right now it’s legal everywhere.

States rights and the right to life are not totally seperate issues. The evidence of the past century shows that as the concentration of power in a central government goes up, the respect shown to human life goes down.

Pax

 

[The_Rock]

So why did Ron Paul support the federal partial birth abortion ban? After all laws don’t solve these problems, right?
And this is a matter better decided by the states, right?

BTW the partial abortion ban was sponsored by Santorum.
I guess he has no problem with federal laws protecting life.

 

[Dan_Daly]

What is nonsensical about questing the commitment to ending abortion of someone who puts a pro-abortion, former planned parenthood board member on her state supreme court?

Gov. Palin on nominating Judge Christen.

Pax

I would say Paul is the most authentic pro-life candidate, but he certainly has issues as well.

I don’t see Paul or anybody eles (including Santorum) talking about issues central to the battle between the culture of death and the culture of life like:
-immodesty
-divorce
-contraception

Is the public mood ripe for action on these issues? Not a lot of folks, but leaders are supposed to lead. That means building consensus not following it.

Pax

 

[Dan_Daly]

So why did Ron Paul support the federal partial birth abortion ban? After all laws don’t solve these problems, right?
And this is a matter better decided by the states, right?

BTW the partial abortion ban was sponsored by Santorum.
I guess he has no problem with federal laws protecting life.

Here is Paul’s answer to your question:

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “…such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide…” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

 

[kbf1970060]

So why did Ron Paul support the federal partial birth abortion ban? After all laws don’t solve these problems, right?
And this is a matter better decided by the states, right?

BTW the partial abortion ban was sponsored by Santorum.
I guess he has no problem with federal laws protecting life.

What distinguishes Santorum, as a sponsor of the ban, and Ron Paul, as a sponsor of the ban?

 

[The_Rock]

It is an interesting and important argument to have. Questioning Paul’s tactics does not automatically mean questioning his belief on the sanctity of life.

Look at slavery. It was dealt with at the state level. Certain states allowed it and others did not. It was ultimately dealt with at a national level by a constitutional ammendment, but if individual states had not been able to make it illegal, it seems clear that slavery would have been legal everywhere longer.

If states were allowed to make abortion illegal, it would be illegal in some states. Right now it’s legal everywhere.

States rights and the right to life are not totally seperate issues. The evidence of the past century shows that as the concentration of power in a central government goes up, the respect shown to human life goes down.

Pax

That is quite a confusing argument. It was the federal government that decided that the states did not have the right to deprive slaves their God given right to be free. This is a prime example of when the principle of Subsidiarity must be tempered by the principle of Solidarity. I would argue that States have no right to take away the God-given inalienable right to life. The stance of Ron Paul and some of his supporters is that the States have the right to deprive the unborn of this God-given right. In a previous thread a Ron Paul supporter here on this forum replied that it was wrong for the federal government to force the States to abandon slavery. All I can say is WOW! This borders on a type of constitutional idolatry. Putting States rights above God-given rights. Any civil law which contradicts Devine law and by extension, natural law is not valid.

 

[Dan_Daly]

The GOP leadership and sadly most Catholics are willing to say life begins at conception, but are not willing to follow the logical consequences that come from that statement. Among them

-stopping use a great many contraceptives
-banning IVF

Pax

Of course all contraceptives are directly anti-life, but getting “pro-lifers” to be against those which directly kill children would be a first step to a total rejection of contraception.

 

[The_Rock]

What distinguishes Santorum, as a sponsor of the ban, and Ron Paul, as a sponsor of the ban?

The fact that for Ron Paul this is the exception to his rule when voting against federal Pro-Life bills.

 

[rlg94086]

The GOP leadership and sadly most Catholics are willing to say life begins at conception, but are not willing to follow the logical consequences that come from that statement. Among them

-stopping use a great many contraceptives
-banning IVF

Pax

Of course all contraceptives are directly anti-life, but getting “pro-lifers” to be against those which directly kill children would be a first step to a total rejection of contraception.

Being a political absolutist regarding IVF and contraception would hurt the Pro-Life cause at this time. Of course, I am opposed to both, but we first need to put an end to abortion; IVF should follow (since embryos are destroyed); abortive contraceptives after that. Many Pro-Lifers, such as I, include them now, but we need to get the maximum coalition we can. I even embrace those who accept an exception for rape and incest, though I don’t agree with them. If a ban on all abortions with the exception of rape and incest were to pass, it would be a good first step.

I don’t know that we would ever get to a ban of the non-abortive contraceptives. That would be a pretty radical shift in public opinion.

 

[Dan_Daly]

That is quite a confusing argument. It was the federal government that decided that the states did not have the right to deprive slaves their God given right to be free. This is a prime example of when the principle of Subsidiarity must be tempered by the principle of Solidarity. I would argue that States have no right to take away the God-given inalienable right to life. The stance of Ron Paul and some of his supporters is that the States have the right to deprive the unborn of this God-given right. In a previous thread a Ron Paul supporter here on this forum replied that it was wrong for the federal government to force the States to abandon slavery. All I can say is WOW! This borders on a type of constitutional idolatry. Putting States rights above God-given rights. Any civil law which contradicts Devine law and by extension, natural law is not valid.

Hello Rock,

I think we agree more than you may think. Constitutional arguments can indeed be confusing. God’s law trumps man’s law, no doubt about that. The question comes about what is the best way to make man’s law conform with God’s law, and there is lots of room for good debate there.

Saying "The Federal government shouldn’t ban X (where x is abortion, drugs, sodomy, contraception, etc)

Is different than saying that X should be legal. I’m in favor of the rule that says no watching TV in my house, but it’s a rule that comes from the Dad level, not the state or federal level.

We have a growing tendency in our politics to seek a national solution for every problem, even from “conservatives”. In some cases, national solutions are appropriate. In many others, the “solution” becomes worse than the problem.

I think that what Paul misses, is that there is a constitutional basis for federal banning of abortion, under the 5th ammendment simply by clarifying that all human beings are persons from conception.

As I pointed out, this is a political non-starter for both parties right now, because neither Democrats nor Republicans want to give up their contraceptives. Until they are, abortion will be with us.

I do think Paul’s argument about the dangers of the partial birth abortion ban are valid. Like him, I would have voted for it, but the language could have been much better, and does run the real risk of providing legal standing to preserving other types of abortion.

Pax

 

[rlg94086]

Hello Rock,

I think we agree more than you may think. Constitutional arguments can indeed be confusing. God’s law trumps man’s law, no doubt about that. The question comes about what is the best way to make man’s law conform with God’s law, and there is lots of room for good debate there.

Saying "The Federal government shouldn’t ban X (where x is abortion, drugs, sodomy, contraception, etc)

Is different than saying that X should be legal. I’m in favor of the rule that says no watching TV in my house, but it’s a rule that comes from the Dad level, not the state or federal level.

We have a growing tendency in our politics to seek a national solution for every problem, even from “conservatives”. In some cases, national solutions are appropriate. In many others, the “solution” becomes worse than the problem.

**I think that what Paul misses, is that there is a constitutional basis for federal banning of abortion, under the 5th ammendment simply by clarifying that all human beings are persons from conception. **

As I pointed out, this is a political non-starter for both parties right now, because neither Democrats nor Republicans want to give up their contraceptives. Until they are, abortion will be with us.

I do think Paul’s argument about the dangers of the partial birth abortion ban are valid. Like him, I would have voted for it, but the language could have been much better, and does run the real risk of providing legal standing to preserving other types of abortion.

Pax

Well stated.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Being a political absolutist regarding IVF and contraception would hurt the Pro-Life cause at this time. Of course, I am opposed to both, but we first need to put an end to abortion; IVF should follow (since embryos are destroyed); abortive contraceptives after that. Many Pro-Lifers, such as I, include them now, but we need to get the maximum coalition we can. I even embrace those who accept an exception for rape and incest, though I don’t agree with them. If a ban on all abortions with the exception of rape and incest were to pass, it would be a good first step.

I don’t know that we would ever get to a ban of the non-abortive contraceptives. That would be a pretty radical shift in public opinion.

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t know if it’s true.

One could argue that the clear inconsistency in stating “life begins at conception” and then not speaking out directly against things that kill human life undermines any effort to stop abortion.

Prolifer: We need to end abortion
Skeptic: Why?
Prolifer; because life begins at conception and human life is precious. It is evil to say some people can live and others can be killed.
Skeptic: so do you want to ban IVF and abortificients?
Prolifer: No
Skeptic: So…you are saying some people can be killed and others can’t. You’re a hypocrite. Good bye.

I think a clearly articulated, consistent, and whole message is better than a compromised and abridged one.

Pax

 

[rlg94086]

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t know if it’s true.

One could argue that the clear inconsistency in stating “life begins at conception” and then not speaking out directly against things that kill human life undermines any effort to stop abortion.

Prolifer: We need to end abortion
Skeptic: Why?
Prolifer; because life begins at conception and human life is precious. It is evil to say some people can live and others can be killed.
Skeptic: so do you want to ban IVF and abortificients?
Prolifer: No
Skeptic: So…you are saying some people can be killed and others can’t. You’re a hypocrite. Good bye.

I think a clearly articulated, consistent, and whole message is better than a compromised and abridged one.

Pax

Speaking against it, and clearly articulating it is one thing. That is not the same as being an absolutist. In other words, you can’t cut off your nose to spite your face. Incrementalism is an acceptable stance to take from a Catholic perspective. We need to make progress. If it means accepting a compromised position in the short term, then lives are saved! If it takes a rape/incest exception to end the rest of abortions, I would support it. To not support such an effort because it doesn’t go far enough would be stupid. In other words, you’d be choosing to accept unrestrained abortion, because the alternative was not strong enough. That makes no sense.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Speaking against it, and clearly articulating it is one thing. That is not the same as being an absolutist. In other words, you can’t cut off your nose to spite your face. Incrementalism is an acceptable stance to take from a Catholic perspective. We need to make progress. If it means accepting a compromised position in the short term, then lives are saved! If it takes a rape/incest exception to end the rest of abortions, I would support it. To not support such an effort because it doesn’t go far enough would be stupid. In other words, you’d be choosing to accept unrestrained abortion, because the alternative was not strong enough. That makes no sense.

It makes no sense as long as you are not in the group deemed acceptable to kill. Once you are in that group, the problems with incrementalization become clearer.

I’d also ask you to clarify your “embracing” of those who support some abortions, with “speaking against it and clearly articulating it”. When you embrace that person, do you tell them that you do so with grave reservations because they support killing innocent children?

If Major Party Candidate A supported killing all the black people in the country, and Major Party Candidate B supported killing all the white people in the country, what do you do?

Support A because less people would die? “Embrace” him as the lesser of two evils and a path to pontential progress?

Or do you understand that a willingness to kill any innocent human life endangers all human life and look for an option C?

Pax Christi

 

[rlg94086]

It makes no sense as long as you are not in the group deemed acceptable to kill. Once you are in that group, the problems with incrementalization become clearer.

I’d also ask you to clarify your “embracing” of those who support some abortions, with “speaking against it and clearly articulating it”. When you embrace that person, do you tell them that you do so with grave reservations because they support killing innocent children?

If Major Party Candidate A supported killing all the black people in the country, and Major Party Candidate B supported killing all the white people in the country, what do you do?

Support A because less people would die? “Embrace” him as the lesser of two evils and a path to pontential progress?

Or do you understand that a willingness to kill any innocent human life endangers all human life and look for an option C?

Pax Christi

You are presenting a false choice, because you aren’t taking the status quo into account. (your analogy is about the killing of white or black people, but we don’t currently kill white or black people )

Currently, we have unrestricted abortion. To vote against restrictions because they don’t go far enough is an absolutist position and would be incredibly stupid. This is my point.

I would “embrace” those who are imperfectly “Pro-Life” because, together, we make a large enough coalition to end much evil. Yes…the lesser of two evils is better than complete evil. We can tackle more evil after the lessening of as much evil as is currently possible.

 

[Dan_Daly]

If you think we are not currently killing black people or white people you are mistaken. Obviously every unborn child has a heritage, and the deliberate targetting of blacks has been part of the abortion industry from the beginning in this country.

It’s not a question of false choices, it’s a question of “embracing” evil in order to do good. It doesn’t work. It’s what Tolkein writes about in Lord of the Rings. The temptation to say “oh well, this is only a little evil, and by committing it, I can do so much good” is great. It’s the path to destruction.

A person’s a person no matter how small. That’s all there is to it.

Any attempt to catergorize which persons are “unpersons” and eligible for murder dehumanizes all of us and leads souls to hell.

Pax

 

[rlg94086]

If you think we are not currently killing black people or white people you are mistaken. Obviously every unborn child has a heritage, and the deliberate targetting of blacks has been part of the abortion industry from the beginning in this country.

It’s not a question of false choices, it’s a question of “embracing” evil in order to do good. It doesn’t work. It’s what Tolkein writes about in Lord of the Rings. The temptation to say “oh well, this is only a little evil, and by committing it, I can do so much good” is great. It’s the path to destruction.

A person’s a person no matter how small. That’s all there is to it.

Any attempt to catergorize which persons are “unpersons” and eligible for murder dehumanizes all of us and leads souls to hell.

Pax

Okay…you are officially an absolutist. While we agree on what constitutes evil, you are obviously against compromise to limit evil. To me, that is nonsensical.

 

[The_Rock]

Hello Rock,

I think we agree more than you may think. Constitutional arguments can indeed be confusing. God’s law trumps man’s law, no doubt about that. The question comes about what is the best way to make man’s law conform with God’s law, and there is lots of room for good debate there.

Saying "The Federal government shouldn’t ban X (where x is abortion, drugs, sodomy, contraception, etc)

Is different than saying that X should be legal. I’m in favor of the rule that says no watching TV in my house, but it’s a rule that comes from the Dad level, not the state or federal level.

We have a growing tendency in our politics to seek a national solution for every problem, even from “conservatives”. In some cases, national solutions are appropriate. In many others, the “solution” becomes worse than the problem.

I think that what Paul misses, is that there is a constitutional basis for federal banning of abortion, under the 5th ammendment simply by clarifying that all human beings are persons from conception.

As I pointed out, this is a political non-starter for both parties right now, because neither Democrats nor Republicans want to give up their contraceptives. Until they are, abortion will be with us.

I do think Paul’s argument about the dangers of the partial birth abortion ban are valid. Like him, I would have voted for it, but the language could have been much better, and does run the real risk of providing legal standing to preserving other types of abortion.

Pax

I agree that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization (the principle of subsidiarity in Catholic social teaching).
The problem arises when an issue so critical to the dignity of the human person (life being the formost) is deneyed by the smaller organization, such as an individuall, or a State. It would violate the Catholic principle of Solidarity to allow the inocent to continue to be slaughtered. Such would be the case if the ultimate objective of opposing Roe v Wade was letting the states decide the legality of abortion. It is just a first step. The ultimate objective is stopping all abortions, not just limiting the Federal government.
This objective of stopping all abortions is not contradicted by an incrimental aporoach. However, I do see a contradiction in the Libertarian posistion that the Federal government has no right or obligation to protect the unborn. Indeed it is an essential fuction of the Federal government to protect it’s citizens against UNJUST State laws.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:
Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Okay…you are officially an absolutist. While we agree on what constitutes evil, you are obviously against compromise to limit evil. To me, that is nonsensical.

So if gang kidnapped your family (say wife, husband, 4 kids) and was going to kill you all, you’d be willing to negotiate them down to say…only killing two of the kids and lettng the rest of you go. And you’d be ok with that?

Or would you fight for everyone.

Sanctioning the murder of innocent people, even if with the intent of saving other innocent people is wrong.

The ends do not justify the means, and somethings simply are yes…absolute.

That’s why dropping the atomic bombs was wrong. There is a very strong argument that they did save a great many lives- Japanese and American. But the act of dropping them involved the deliberate killing of a great many innocent children. That evil can not be excused by the mathematics of how many lives were saved by committing it.

Pax

 

[rlg94086]

So if gang kidnapped your family (say wife, husband, 4 kids) and was going to kill you all, you’d be willing to negotiate them down to say…only killing two of the kids and lettng the rest of you go. And you’d be ok with that?

Or would you fight for everyone.

Sanctioning the murder of innocent people, even if with the intent of saving other innocent people is wrong.

The ends do not justify the means, and somethings simply are yes…absolute.

That’s why dropping the atomic bombs was wrong. There is a very strong argument that they did save a great many lives- Japanese and American. But the act of dropping them involved the deliberate killing of a great many innocent children. That evil can not be excused by the mathematics of how many lives were saved by committing it.

Pax

Oh brother… Yeah…we are far apart from a prudential reasoning aspect. Enjoy your completely ineffective absolutist stances that continue the status quo. Typical Paulbot.