jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has he ever been quoted as saying abortion should not be an option when the mother's life is in danger? I thought that's why they ultimately induced labor. She had several other children who needed a mother. Not saying I agree with him, but I don't see an inconsistency here if he recognizes an exception for the life of the mother.

This can probably be argued both ways. The reality of abortion politics means that proponents of both sides of the issues will often support half measures because that is better than nothing. In that vein, Santorum has supported -- and even introduced -- abortion bills that contained a "life of the mother" exceptions. At the same time, he has called health of the mother exceptions "phony." Then, of course, you have to split hairs between "life" and "health" of the mother. Santorum also signed on in support of Personhood USA's "personhood" amendment which would ban all abortions without a life of the mother exception. But, you could argue that he did that in order to win Iowa. You can basically find enough facts to support any argument you want to make about this.

I get the half-measures bit, that's the nature of pluralism. Most politicians and leaders have to be for somethings that they're against in order to govern. That said, no one should kid themselves in thinking he wouldn't support extreme positions when given the opportunity...because he already has. The fact that he could support such a law given his own family's experience is disturbing, even if you can explain it away as a political calculation. If it's not a political calculation (which is troubling enough in itself), then it's just pure hypocrisy. And I use that term in the worst sense. A man in his position would never have a problem getting around inconvenient laws. Look at his team try to re-frame what really happened here so that, look see, no, there was no abortion at all! They're already trying to get around inconvenient facts.

But, you could argue that he did that in order to win Iowa. You can basically find enough facts to support any argument you want to make about this

Therein lies the problem with this whole discussion.

Anonymous wrote:Has he ever been quoted as saying abortion should not be an option when the mother's life is in danger? I thought that's why they ultimately induced labor. She had several other children who needed a mother. Not saying I agree with him, but I don't see an inconsistency here if he recognizes an exception for the life of the mother.

This can probably be argued both ways. The reality of abortion politics means that proponents of both sides of the issues will often support half measures because that is better than nothing. In that vein, Santorum has supported -- and even introduced -- abortion bills that contained a "life of the mother" exceptions. At the same time, he has called health of the mother exceptions "phony." Then, of course, you have to split hairs between "life" and "health" of the mother. Santorum also signed on in support of Personhood USA's "personhood" amendment which would ban all abortions without a life of the mother exception. But, you could argue that he did that in order to win Iowa. You can basically find enough facts to support any argument you want to make about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Karen Santorum was about 19 weeks pregnant when her unborn baby was found to be suffering from a fatal condition. This is where a lot of people choose to terminate. Instead, the Santorums tried intrauterine surgery. Tragically, the surgery caused an infection. Mrs. Santorum had a fever of 105. Again, instead of moving straight to early induction of their non-viable baby, the Santorums tried antibiotics first. Labor started due to the infection. Mrs. Santorum even asked for drugs to stop the labor. Despite all the lies circulating on the internet, Pitocin was never administered. Baby Gabriel was born at 20 weeks and apparently lived a short while. Through this whole ordeal, the Santorums acted according to their stated principles.

Source please.

First of all, let me say I do not like Santorum.

That said, I read an excerpt of her book, which is the claimed source material for this. According to her words, she started having contractions due to the infection. She asked to have drugs to STOP her contractions, and her husband asked her not to.

So the claims that she induced (ie caused an abortion) would be incorrect, unless the account in her book is wrong. Instead, they did not take extraordinary measures - beyond the fetal surgery itself and subsequent antibiotics - to reach term. But even Catholics don't believe you are required to take extraordinary measures to prevent death.

Has he ever been quoted as saying abortion should not be an option when the mother's life is in danger? I thought that's why they ultimately induced labor. She had several other children who needed a mother. Not saying I agree with him, but I don't see an inconsistency here if he recognizes an exception for the life of the mother.

Anonymous wrote:Karen Santorum was about 19 weeks pregnant when her unborn baby was found to be suffering from a fatal condition. This is where a lot of people choose to terminate. Instead, the Santorums tried intrauterine surgery. Tragically, the surgery caused an infection. Mrs. Santorum had a fever of 105. Again, instead of moving straight to early induction of their non-viable baby, the Santorums tried antibiotics first. Labor started due to the infection. Mrs. Santorum even asked for drugs to stop the labor. Despite all the lies circulating on the internet, Pitocin was never administered. Baby Gabriel was born at 20 weeks and apparently lived a short while. Through this whole ordeal, the Santorums acted according to their stated principles.

Source please.