Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Question About Santorum's Views on Contraception
02/16/2011 | self

Posted on 02/16/2012 12:28:11 PM PST by joesbucks

In an interview in 2006, Santorum said: "I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of human life."

But Valentines Day in Idaho Santorum said: Rick Santorum told the crowd he'll work to extend the definition of personhood to include unborn fetuses. "I do not believe life begins at conception," he said. "I know life begins at conception.

Since many birth control methods are abortifacients, how does this stack up if Santorum is considered pro life?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: conception; life
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last
To: joesbucks

LOL... I know. Just poking fun at ya.


21 posted on 02/16/2012 12:53:58 PM PST by Gator113 (~Just livin' life, my way~..... GO NEWT GO--itÂ’s about the survival of our country!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: donna

[ It was always a state issue until federal judges started creating laws. If we are to survive, it must return to being a state issue. ]

NAILED IT!


22 posted on 02/16/2012 12:58:07 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Many birth control pills are abortifacients. Meaning they cause for lack of a better term, a chemical abortion. If the egg is fertilized, it won’t implant because the womb is made hostile to the fertilized egg (life)by taking the pill.

Certain implanted devices, such as an IUD, also act as an abortifacient.


23 posted on 02/16/2012 1:01:56 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

24 posted on 02/16/2012 1:02:00 PM PST by Fred (http://whenmittromneycametotown.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Many birth control pills are abortifacients. Meaning they cause for lack of a better term, a chemical abortion. If the egg is fertilized, it won’t implant because the womb is made hostile to the fertilized egg (life)by taking the pill.

Certain implanted devices, such as an IUD, also act as an abortifacient.

It’s not just the “morning after pill” that causes a hostile to the egg womb.


25 posted on 02/16/2012 1:02:33 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GraceG; All

I have been wondering about this topic. Since many say that abortion is a state’s rights issue does that also mean that slavery should be left to the states as well?

Serious question. Obviously slavery is an abomination but I can’t understand how we as a government can’t say, “It’s illegal, period.”


26 posted on 02/16/2012 1:05:17 PM PST by MiddleEarth (With hope or without hope we'll follow the trail of our enemies. Woe to them, if we prove the faster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MiddleEarth

“Not every contraceptive is an abortifacient so I imagine he meant those forms.”

Incorrect. Every birth control pill on the market, chemical implant, and hardware implant, is abortifacient.

They’re intended to prevent conception, but when that mechanism fails and conception occurs, the back-up plan is the prevention of embryo implantation by thinning of the uterine lining. The embryo dies.

That’s an abortion.

I’m not in favor of banning these methods, but let’s not lie to ourselves about how they work.


27 posted on 02/16/2012 1:13:08 PM PST by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

Most BC pills actually prevent ovulation. No ovulation = no egg = nothing to abort. Even the most common IUD’s are generally not regarded as abortifacients by the medical community.

This notion that something “could” be an abortifacient and therefore, it must be interpereted as such, with no real evidence to that fact, is a dangerous slope that many people, even those who are nominally prolife, don’t want to ski down.


28 posted on 02/16/2012 1:14:05 PM PST by RockinRight (If you're waiting to drink until you find pure water, you're going to die of dehydration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink

By your definition then, I AM in favor of banning those methods.


29 posted on 02/16/2012 1:16:41 PM PST by MiddleEarth (With hope or without hope we'll follow the trail of our enemies. Woe to them, if we prove the faster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MiddleEarth

Good luck with that.


30 posted on 02/16/2012 1:18:48 PM PST by RockinRight (If you're waiting to drink until you find pure water, you're going to die of dehydration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink

Blue Ink,

I think Middleearth was referring to condoms, which are not abortifacients.


31 posted on 02/16/2012 1:20:28 PM PST by Columbo (Just one more thing....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Parsing? I think it was very clear what he has said for a change and what he says now. Don’t people ever get tired of interpreting what politicians “meant to say?”. If Santorum would stop rambling, overtalking, and stop the excitement, maybe he could make some sense.


32 posted on 02/16/2012 1:20:41 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

What do you mean by “no real evidence”?


33 posted on 02/16/2012 1:21:36 PM PST by MiddleEarth (With hope or without hope we'll follow the trail of our enemies. Woe to them, if we prove the faster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: donna

It’s not a proper area for government on any level to interfere with. Ideally, the state and federal level prevent each other from doing so.


34 posted on 02/16/2012 1:22:37 PM PST by NoPinkos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
This notion that something “could” be an abortifacient and therefore, it must be interpereted as such, with no real evidence to that fact, is a dangerous slope that many people, even those who are nominally prolife, don’t want to ski down.

Yep. It's exactly like the loony left view that guns are evil because they are sometimes used to commit crimes.

35 posted on 02/16/2012 1:25:40 PM PST by NoPinkos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
"I am pro-life, but this parsing of Rick Santorum is silly. At this end of the day, this election is going to be about the economy and our freedoms."

If Santorum is the GOP candidate this election will be about Social Issues 24/7...and NOT by his choice. It's the only questions that he will be presented with. The ads that will be run will deliberately distort and misrepresent his positions, forcing him to defend.

24 x 7.

36 posted on 02/16/2012 1:26:25 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

Since Dec 24, 1997 to be exact!


37 posted on 02/16/2012 1:30:25 PM PST by b4its2late (Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NoPinkos; RockinRight

I disagree. Most of those who say these methods probably don’t cause an abortion base their statements on the view that life begins at IMPLANTATION not CONCEPTION. IUD’s etc often cause babies not to be able to implant in the womb...as far as I can see, thereby causing an abortion.


38 posted on 02/16/2012 1:30:59 PM PST by MiddleEarth (With hope or without hope we'll follow the trail of our enemies. Woe to them, if we prove the faster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd; joesbucks
Joe

You'll find a lot of newbies around here now days that will attack you personally if you do not support Santorum. Anything negative about the guy...or his chances of election...and you'll be accused of being a Godless Communist or worse.

The blinded SoCons are absolutely determined to have their guy and they are willing to burn down our tenuous coalition to get him.

39 posted on 02/16/2012 1:33:07 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

RockinRight,

The medical community changed the definition of the beginning of pregnancy to refer to implantation rather than the moment of fertilization.

Chemical contraception works in 3 different ways, most often by disrupting ovulation, but also through making the uterine walls inhospitable for implantation if a conception does occur. This is commonly admitted. For instance:

“Hormonal methods work in one of three ways: 1) preventing a woman’s ovaries from releasing an egg each each month; 2) causing the cervical mucus to thicken making it harder for sperm to reach and penetrate the egg; 3) thinning the lining of the uterus which reduces the likelihood that a fertilized egg will implant in the uterus wall.” http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/overviewtypesbirthcontrol.html


40 posted on 02/16/2012 1:35:35 PM PST by Columbo (Just one more thing....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson