Santorum Doubles Down: Abortions Violate Civil Rights Like Slavery Did

one-sick-fuck

+++++++++++


Rick Santorum doubled down today on his comments about President Obama, race, and abortion, again comparing the constitutional rights of the "unborn" to the constitutional rights of black people: "I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country."

Santorum, a likely Republican candidate for president in 2012, followed up on his earlier remarks with a statement to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network:

For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country.

Santorum had said in an interview with CNS News yesterday that he can't understand how Obama could not answer whether a "human life" is protected by the Constitution from the moment of conception: "I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'we're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/santorum-doubles-down-obama-refuses-to-see-how-abortions-violate-civil-rights-like-slavery-did.php

(Sarcasm, of course).

Santorum's quote about "a black man to say..." is a low blow, too. Yet another Republican inciting hatred.

To Republicans, women aren't people.

If they were real people, they'd be getting paid more than 73 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men do. This proves God wants men to be the heads of the households.

A woman is a useful place to stuff a sperm into when a person wants to produce an heir. Any constitutional rights a woman may have are revoked the moment she contains a zygote -- all rights are immediately transferred to the zygote.

women have an average of 6 to 8 children each, based roughly on 19th century numbers. Ask men then, if they cherish the thought of working however many extra hours of work required to support that many kids; ask women too, how they would manage to feed and clothe and provide for so many kids.

:shrug:

Though I have no doubt it is human blood that came from a human. :)

:shrug:

It is a "member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens"

It is a "member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens."

is a living human.

does that mean, by your logic, that a woman who miscarries should be sent to prison for murder?

Same idiotic logic.

A blastocyst (pictured) is to a person as a seed is to a tree.

The human (or any) lifecycle is a continuum where no stage is identical to another.

whatever that may mean to different individuals.

Just as a multipotent stem cell is not a femur.

not a fact. How can defining a word as ambiguous as "human" be anything but an opinion?

is the exact same thing as this:






NEVERTHELESS, this debate is not about whether or not we're all entitled to our "opinions". That's not what it's about.


It's about whether the government should go down the insane legal fucking rabbit hole of defining, in legal terms, this



as the exact same thing as this:

but not because I don't think it is a human. I just understand the reality that is abortion and would rather have it regulated.

I presume you justify abortion by thinking that what is being aborted isn't human? Maybe not? We all justify it for different reasons or have reasons why it needs not be justified at all.

Personally, I think the "it's not a human" defense of pro-choice is rather weak as a way to convince others, as it relies entirely on how one interprets when a life begins, which cannot be "proven" and is mostly dependant on opinion and in many cases in the US, one's religion.

I think a more convincing argument is one based on reality that everyone has to accept. Like the fact that make abortion illegal doesn't necessarily decrease the number of them. Like the fact that more liberal countries with more sex education have less teen pregnancies and less abortions due to unwanted babies.

Whatever people's view on when life begins or when a human gains rights or whatever, the vast majority want to reduce the number or the need for a medical procedure like abortion, especially due to an unwanted pregnancy, and want to make it safe if it does happen. So regulating it and making it legal is the way to go. And hopeuflly it will also spur people to look at the factors that lead to a high number of unwanted pregnancies and try to implement policies to reduce them.

I think the only person qualified to make decisions about a pregnancy is the woman in whose body it is taking place.

But personally, I think trying to argue about whether a single cell is "human" or not is pure semantics. What I don't see, however, is the logic in saying that somehow the second after the sperm and egg fuse, you have something that is magically vastly different than the 2 gametes that combined to form it.

at least in our society. People have the power to vote on things which may never effect them personally. And even then, it's hard to see how abortion doesn't effect everyone as a policy. Men have sisters and mothers. Society depends on children being born.

Pretty much, any opinion on when life begins doesn't make much sense logically if you ask me, nor can it really. I'm not sure I think that it is "vastly magically different" so much as just defined as a human then.

Sperms are alive. Eggs are alive.

People may have the power to vote on things that don't affect them personally, but I also think that governmental decision-making should defer to the right of individuals to control their own bodies, as a general guideline.

My personal philosophical opinion is that the ONLY person qualified to make a decision about a pregnancy taking place inside a woman's body is the woman herself. Period. End of story.

And are purposefully getting into the Rethug argument rather than the more solid, Dem position.

and I didn't bring up the "when does it beome a life" issue, but was responding to it. In the legal sense, abortion is seen as a privacy issue, that is true.

the factual inaccuracy of your statement. A fertilized egg is human. A fertilized egg is not "a" human. But you know that. We all do.

Saying a fertlized egg is not "a" human is not a fact. And yes, how human is defined, especially in this context, is ambiguous. Pretending your opinion is the only one doesn't make it so.

Even the most rabid of fetus worshipers (or at the very least the spokespersons they trot out into public) are honest enough to acknowledge that a fertilized egg is a potential person, a potential human(noun), composed of human(verb) tissue, not "a" human(noun). They acknowledge this because it is at least as obvious as gravity and the round earth and one assumes they understand that veracity is foundational to any attempt at lasting persuasion.

because you say so. You still haven't shown the proof for your "fact".

:hi:

:hi:

is determining when life begins or when personhood begins the same as determining if the Earth is flat or round? Seems pretty obvious that one is much harder to determine, even impossible, to any scientific degree at least. One's a moral question based on personal opinion, the other isn't.

Your analogy is not only an ad hominem attack, but very poor as well.

If a woman miscarries the "human", she's committed murder obviously per your opinion.

What kind of punishment should she receive? Murder's pretty serious stuff. If the blastocyst or fetus is a human, then all abortions are murder per your logic. Furthermore, for example a doctor who makes the decision to terminate an ectopic pregnancy is committing murder too, since the doctor is ending that human life....

Your logic isn't rational imho.

I won't presume to speak for maru, but maru really doesn't have to prove a negative. The real burden is on you to prove your position. The scientific and legal evidence of the lack of personhood for a blastocyst or fetus is abundant online (I've already given you the legal evidence for my facts).

as an adult or baby personally. The law already differentiates based on age. The legal matter in the US is certainly currently settled. But the "when life begins" or when there is "personhood" with all the rights that may come with it moral aspect never will be. And people are still using it as an argument to try to change the law. Which could happen if you get the right judges on the Supreme Court.

I personally think it is irrational to base the argument on when life begins or personhood, as all that usually happens is that people have a policy preferance, privacy preferance, etc. and then just shape the moral question to fit their view, which is very easy to do with something as ambiguous as "life" and "personhood".

Abortion is one of those dilemma issues where I don't think there can be a foolproof, correct moral aspect.

So now you are positing that the fetus is both human but not as human as an adult or baby....

And now you're saying it's not rational to try to categorize it as human (even though you've spend numerous posts doing just that).

You acknowledge that the fetus' legal status as "not human" is currently settled law (and is settled in science actually too) but still demand "proof" that it is not a human from Maru...

You are not being very consistent and it's getting difficult to follow exactly where you're going with this.

I personally think it is a human. That doesn't mean I think it has the same rights or status of "personhood". I think scientifically, it definitely is a human. I think legally, it doesn't have to be given the same rights, very simple really. The law already differntiates based on age as it is.

If you could provide proof that there is settled science that proves the fact about when it is a human or when it acquires personhood, you really should, because you keep making this claim, but there is no settled fact about it, and there is no way "scientifically" to decide what is ultimatelly a moral question. Science cannot define when it is a "human" or when it should be given legal rights.

It's so simple, I'm sorry if you can't follow, but you might as well just stop responding if you can't understand.

argument.

just ad hominem attacks and blathering that hasn't addressed one single point.

Again, I claim that while one can have an opinion, based on the science available, as to when it is a human, there is no proof and cannot be about what is essentially a moral question.

Since you have failed to even address my arguments or come up with the proof that you claim exists, and which I claim is impossible to exist, I'll just assume you are trying to save face.

And that other gets to decide what to do with that parasite, whether it's a blastocyst or a mosquito.

It's unable to live on it's own and thus by legal definition is brain dead and it's viability is determinative by it's "guardian", ie. the mother.

By all legal definitions, it's fate is in the hands of the living adult human responsible for it.

I would never take that decision away from them, just as I would never take legal rights away from a spouse to make end of life decisions, or any other family member faced with that decision.

All medical decisions rest with the doctor and the patient, period. Other family members can get involved IF the original parties agree but basically anyone else's OPINIONS don't matter at all.

but it is a living human. If you want to view it as a parasite, that's your opinion.

In current United States law, at the moment of birth a biological being becomes a human being. By contrast, in declaring in 1973 that abortion is a permissible medical procedure, the U.S. Supreme Court said, "The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." (Hardin 1982:138) The transition to the status of full humanity is viewed not as a biological fact, but as a legal or cultural fact. There is a practical aspect pointed out by Retired Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark: the moment of birth is known, but the moment of conception is speculative. "...the law deals in reality not obscurity--the known rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation." (Swomley 1983:1)


You are not entitled to change the facts and label them opinions, especially when it comes to abortion.

just stating my opinion. Legal definitions make sense in the legal field. In the moral/cultural field, they are just another opinion.

And by quite a few legal and scientific definitions it could be considered a human. So it is indeed your opinion, and not a fact that it is not a living human. To me, scientifically, it is quite easily a human. That is why I have the opinion I do. I don't know what makes it not a human. It is a genetically unique individual. It may even become two or more individuals. It may abort itself. But it is, at that time, IMHO, a human.

There are no "facts" about such philosophical questions anyways. They are all entirely opinions, though facts may be used to try to reinforce an opinion.

Since we're discussing the legal status of the fertilized egg in relation to Santorum's remarks, you are playing a dangerous and disingenuous game trying to change the legal argument into a moral and cultural discussion on abortion. It's a Rethug, Right to Life discussion tactic that's pretty shamefully transparent. Even in this post I'm responding to, you do it several times. This isn't a philosophical discussion - frankly it isn't ever philosophical when it comes to abortion - it's a legal matter. A highly charged matter where precise terms are extremely important and their proper usage is imperative.

As progressive Dems its even more essential that we utilize the correct terminology to counter-act false and incorrect connotations such as yours.

it was a claim about what was human or not or a person or not or what have you. You changed the subject to the legal field. I didn't even first bring up the "dangerous and disingenuous" moral and cultural aspect, but I honestly think it makes no sense to ignore it either, since so many base their opinion (including the law) on abortion on it. The law is a reflection of our morals and culture in many respects, including when it comes to abortion.

Legally it may not be a person with rights, I don't dispute that, but quite a few people do think it is, or at least think it is a human, and people can make and change the law, so it might be something you want to address or at the very least understand so you can make an argument for your position effectively. Law has a lot to do with philosophy. Heck, reading those Court opinions proves that.

As I stipulated above, the fetus or embryo cannot live outside the adult woman. Just as we do with neurologically dead humans, someone else - a close relative, spouse, family member or guardian gets to make the decision on when that life ends. Terry Schiavo is a grotesque parody of those basic issues but the fundamentals are the same. When a body cannot live on their own, the decision about their life begins and ends with someone else.

A blastocyst is no more neurologically capable than Terry Schiavo for example. And nobody else gets to interfere in those private medical decisions about that "life" but the family member that's assigned to make those decisions.

An adult woman gets to make that decision about that blastocyst or fetus since it inhabits her body without any interference. Your semantical conflation of a blastocyst or fetus with a fully born human baby is an attempt to manipulate the facts of fetal development in a divisive and dishonest way.

In the case of RH incompatibility, the mother's auto-immune system attacks the fetus as a foreign substance and brings about it ceasing to function resulting in a spontaneous abortion and still birth. This can take place during the last trimester when the fetus is essentially viable and could survive with specialized care outside the uterus. The anti-bodies that destroy the fetus are generated following the first birth and multiply with each subsequent pregnancy. In this case the mother's auto-immune system is protecting her against an life threating invasion. Could it be argued by the pro-lifers that if the mother refused to have a C-section in an attempt to save the fetus that she should be held liable if it expires?

Post #74: "Science cannot define when it is a "human""

You are contradicting yourself and not making any sense.

:cry: for the child, or :grr: for the soldier . . .

He has the same chance as the proverbial snowball in hell.

He's going nowhere.

:hi:

:hi:

:rofl:

Probably the only person as beatable as Palin.

It's a shame that Dan Savage doesn't run a similar contest on Palin.

:P

1) It is the time between MLK day and February, Black History Month. Emotions regarding race run high during this time of year, especially with bigots.

2) There have been screenings of a "documentary" (and I use that term loosely) called MAAFA 21 that is circulating across the country, particularly in cities with large black populations and at HBCUs (historically black colleges & universities). It basically says that abortion is being used as an attempt at black genocide. The group promoting this tripe is a white, GA-based anti-choice group. They even went so far as to recruit a black person on their formerly all-lily-white staff to go to the campuses to promote the film, since they were having difficulties getting blacks to come join their cause (can't imagine why).

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/2341/anti-choice_doc_aims_to_link_reproductive_rights_to_%E2%80%98black_genocide%E2%80%99

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/us/27race.html?_r=1


DU folks are hella smart so I am sure you guys can connect the dots. Santorum's just doing his part for the cause.

Shut the hell up--no one cares what you think.

why argue with him with anything but his own "logic".

a fetus is not a baby until it has taken its first breath.
If a fetus is a baby, then a pregnant woman or family can take
that fetus as an exemption on their taxes
Need to change the tax code to fit his belief

...until we're back to the days of back-alley abortions.

Well, we'll already getting there, judging by the news out of Pennsylvania:

Pa. Abortion Doc Charged With 8 Counts of Murder

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4702325

Anyway, that sort of thing is the inevitable result of trying to make abortions illegal. Because women will continue to have abortions. And as abortions become harder to obtain, and as they become more frowned upon and fraught with shame, more women will wait longer to have them, until desperation forces their hand -- increasing the risks as well as the moral questions.

Sadly, most of today's young women don't seem to have a good understanding of the issues. They think abortions are legal, they have never lived in a place where that is not the case. They have been bombarded with the message that fetuses are babies, and that feminist women are feminazis and ugly crones who hate men and want to kill babies. In the meantime they still have to deal with the consequences of sex while the young men do not, and the world continues to turn.

One day they'll know. Unfortunately, it looks like they'll be learning the hard way. I hope it doesn't get worse, but things aren't looking that good right now.

he is one of their own.
I see Newt is running, too-there's a great pair for the White House!

mark

but what do you expect from Republicans? :shrug:

Along with supporting the privatization of Social Security and voting against the Lautenbery amendment that would close the loophole that allowed Hallibuton to do business as usual with Iran, Santorum is especially critical of the Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision of 1965 that struck down as unconstitutional the state law that under the influence of the Catholic Church prohibited the sale and use of contraceptives. Many thought it strange that when their child died shortly after birth that they brought the dead baby hope to introduce him to their other children. He abhors homosexuality and would reinstate laws making homosexual acts unlawful. Of course he is strongly opposes abortion, but would outlaw contraception which is the most effective means of preventing unwanted pregnancies. He is most probably a member of Opus Dei, the secretive radical conservative sect in the Catholic Church, as well as both he and his wife being members of the Knights of Malta. Weird beyond measure.

abortion is not going to go away
it never has
the technology to perform an abortion is too widespread
all that will happen is that it will be be driven underground like prohibition

and prohibition worked so FUCKING WELL didn't it.