Rick Santorum’s hypocrisy knows no bounds

This man would require that rape victims carry their pregnancy to term regardless of what it does to the her, but when his own wife’s life was threatened by a pregnancy gone wrong he had her get an abortion. He’s fine with applying his morality to everyone else, but when it comes to his own family, well, “the situation is different”, as he has said in the past.

Should this asshole land the Republican nomination remember the fact that he doesn’t think his own rules apply to him or his family. #seb #politics #Rick_Santorum #Republicans #Abortion

Embedded Link

Santorum: Sexual Assault Victims Should Accept Pregnancy, “Make The Best Out Of A Bad Situation”
Rick Santorum told Piers Morgan why he is against abortion, even if a rape victim would be traumatized by carrying a fetus to term.
SANTORUM : Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she w…

Google+: View post on Google+

10 thoughts on “Rick Santorum’s hypocrisy knows no bounds

  1. 1. I've stopped wasting space on anything Santorum has to say. His chance of getting the nomination (bar Newt and Mitt being found in bed together) is nil. Thank (ironically) God.

    2. Honestly, despite his rancid way of phrasing it, I've never quite understood rape/incest exceptions to abortion, if you are going to otherwise outlaw abortion because it's killing a baby. If it's killing a baby, then letting it be killed because of the crime of the father is even more heinous.

  2. of course it is different, his wife isn't a w*** who is sleeping with lots and lots of men or some s*** who wears the wrong clothes and gives men the wrong idea.

    +Dave Hill – You know as well as I do it isn't about the babies. They don't give a shit after they are born. This stuff makes me mad.

  3. I can honestly say that, for some individuals opposed to abortion, it is about the babies (and the people I am thinking of carry on that concern after they are born).

    Regarding Santorum … who know? My sense is that he just plays lip service to principle, regardless of the cost to the people involved.

  4. Saving babies – sure I'm down with that. But when it's a clump of cells, it's not a baby. There's nobody there yet to "save" and our society's lack of credible safety net puts the woman in a hell of a spot. Want to reduce abortions, there is a way to go about it and prohibition ain't it.

  5. I agree. My original comment was about the inconsistency of allowing for a rape/incest exception in abortion law. Either it's a baby (at whatever semi-arbitrary point we're making) or it's not; either it's a life that should be protected or it's not.

    What such an exception does, though, is highlight the cruelty and cost of anti-abortion laws, which is why, until recently, it's been the usual way of approaching these things. The increasing extremism of the Far Right, though, has taken that inconsistency off the table in most cases, which makes at least for a more realistic debate.

  6. If Santourm wanted to be Biblically authentic he would force the rape victim to marry the rapist.

    Habitual hypocrisy in politicians should never surprise, particularly this year’s coterie of Republican candidates. All three candidates are hypocrites on abortion, but between Newt’s family values and Romney’s running away from “Romneycare”, who is surprised by any prevaricating from this bunch? If the nationwide Republican party’s base were pro-choice, Romney would be as pro-choice as I am.

    As for Santorum, he represents the worst of what Catholicism and American Christianity have to offer. He is a Qur’an and a beard away from being the Taliban’s ambassador to the United States. The irony is that if he took office and ran the nation in the manner that he campaigns on, he would be the biggest “big government” president in our history.

  7. Zilch… Santorum is a fringe candidate running in a party where the fringe is the mainstream. Hopefully this will be a ’64 type election, where the radical wing of the Republican Party will be stomped on in the general election (not to compare Goldwater to these candidates, which would be a terrible insult.)

    Here is another good video, Romney on abortion….

  8. The only way you could “Make The Best Out Of A Bad Situation” – when the bad “situation” is rape – is to go up and beat Santorum into unconsciousness – then use your rape to plead “Diminished responsibility” at the trial.

  9. Positive- that’s the problem with trying to sell “make us rich at your expense”, isn’t it? At some point, even the lowest common denominator gets it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>