From Gabriel's Story:
at a routine sonogram, the 20 week old baby in my womb was diagnosed with a defect that is always fatal without surgery. Through our immense heartache came the most basic of parental emotions: We had to save our child. After many tests it was determined our son was eligible for the operation that could save his life. It was a success, but an infection developed in the amniotic sac, and I was rushed to the hospital with a high fever, having contractions. I begged the doctors to stop my labor, but they said it would be malpractice, for I would surely die since these infections are untreatable. (emphasis is mine)
DailyKOS published Rick Santorum is against abortion for any reason, with one exception, and even used the following 'quote', directly from the second article linked in this post.
The blatant lies have gone viral, and pro-aborts continue to spread them. A few tweets from Twitter clearly shows pro-aborts don't have a problem with spreading lies.
And....
And...
I even found one by @IAmDrTiller, aka the ring leader of Abortion Gang.
Though she has been told the story was in fact a lie, she hasn't deleted the tweet at this point.
We'll see how the pro-choice community responds to what was obviously 'misinformation' (as they call it).
There is also another element of this story that the choicer's are twisting. From Father First, Senator Second
Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.
What pro-life refers to as 'respecting the dead', choicer's refer to as 'sick'. I suppose throwing him in the garbage like trash would have been preferable to them.
Abortion = the termination of pregnancy. There is nothing dishonest here except your tone of moral outrage and your pretense that what Karen Santorum went through wasn't an abortion. This is something she understood better than you do, apparently, since she's reported to have requested labor-suppressing drugs.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Santorum's words are a perfect example of "The only moral abortion is my abortion" mindset that pervades the anti-choice movement.
And if you think what Rick Santorum did with that fetal corpse was "respecting the dead", then you must think the scenario depicted in Weekend at Bernie's was practically a sanctification of the corpse. Normal people whose object is not to reflexively defend an emotionally unstable theocrat would say that this is obsessive behavior with more than a little hint of necrophilia about it.
Thanks for posting the screenshots, because I searched for and RTed every last tweet that you misogynists from the Anti-Abortion Gang posted on this blog.
ReplyDeleteThose tweets tell the truth about former Pa. Sen. Santorum and his hypocrisy.
Nullifidian - The linked articles imply that Karen Santorum had an INDUCED abortion. That's not what happened, so stop lying about it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the baby, the Santorum's did what they believed. Sad you can't respect them for that.
jovan b - What hypocrisy? This is the worst case for pro-aborts. A Christian couple losing their baby and in danger of losing the mother. And the mother lived!
ReplyDeletejovan b - Let me explain my last comment, before you take it out of context.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the mother had died? Then pro-aborts would be screaming that pro-life forced her to carry the baby, even though it would have killed her.
Karen Santorum was in immediate danger. Either of the following could have happened.
She went into labor and delivered the baby naturally, the baby died but the mother lived.
Or...
She didn't go into labor. She admits that ultimately she would have chosen to be induced, rather than die and leave her born children without a mother.
In both of the scenarios above, the mother lived, and the baby died. This was the best possible outcome, regardless of how it occurred, because the baby was going to die anyway.
The truth is, that the Santorum's are living proof of what pro-life has said all along. We do not want women to die, and would do whatever it took to keep that from occurring.
Kind of bites to be pro-choice right now, doesn't it?
Nullifidian - "Abortion = the termination of pregnancy" By your logic, giving birth at full term is an abortion. After all, the pregnancy is terminated, isn't it?
ReplyDelete'Null'-your vendetta against the unborn isn't going to undo the (purported) abuse you suffered as a child. Your academic pinhead ramblings here do nothing to disguise your issues, in fact they highlight them. Get well soon.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this-it proves yet again that prochoice does anything but support the choices of women-women are only political tools to be used to further their agenda. But we knew that already. Once again they sink to an all new low, dissing grieving parents and heaping more death on a child already dead before it had a chance. I'd call them vultures, but that would be an insult to vultures, who actually serve a valuable function in their ecosystems-unlike choice nazis.
Let's review: induced labor leading to live birth is not abortion-how many aborted babies are born alive? Too difficult for those of you whose parents got robbed paying for a lib education?
ReplyDeleteArmored Saint - I think null has taken up residence here, trying to wean him lol..
ReplyDeleteIt's really sad that pro-aborts would stoop so low as to spread lies intentionally, but this post is proof that they do. Also, their attempt to equate abortion with live births, sickens me.
Thanks for posting this-it proves yet again that prochoice does anything but support the choices of women
ReplyDeleteI beg your pardon? When was the topic of the choices of women even at issue here? The only choice of a woman that was ignored was Karen Santorum's request for medication to stop her contractions and that was rightly refused on the principle that leaving the fetus inside her would kill her. You cannot expect doctors to commit malpractice for you. I thought that was a given.
Maybe you ought to look at the mental disorder that causes you to spout off-topic gibberish.
Nullifidian - The linked articles imply that Karen Santorum had an INDUCED abortion. That's not what happened, so stop lying about it.
ReplyDeleteNo, they only "imply" that to the inexpert. Since what is being said is in fact true, then it follows that telling other people to stop lying is merely a case of projecting your own ignorance.
And the process that Karen Santorum went through is not materially different from what happens during a dilation and extraction procedure, except for the fact that her body was helping out.
As for the baby, the Santorum's did what they believed. Sad you can't respect them for that.
I'd be worried if I started respecting the kind of beliefs that make people take home a corpse, bundle it up, coo over it, sing to it, and then take pictures of themselves with the corpse. Even if you believed that the fetus was once a living person, it is unquestionably dead by the time that the Santorums get their hands on it and take it home to play with for several hours. You honestly see nothing bizarre in people playing dolly with a dead fetus?
"I'd be worried if I started respecting the kind of beliefs that make people take home a corpse, bundle it up, coo over it, sing to it, and then take pictures of themselves with the corpse."
ReplyDeleteYour complete intolerance and lack of respect for grieving parents, is disturbing.
TAAG, it's painfully obvious that you are avoiding my question.
ReplyDeleteEven if you believed that the fetus was once a living person, it is unquestionably dead by the time that the Santorums get their hands on it and take it home to play with for several hours. You honestly see nothing bizarre in people playing dolly with a dead fetus?
Now, let me put this another way: since we are reliably informed that a fetus is a person, it shouldn't be any weirder than taking home a fully grown adult corpse. Say a much beloved parent to dress up and sit at his or her place presiding over the family meal? A few family photos snapped with the dead person? Or taking home a dead wife or girlfriend, dressing her, doing up her makeup, and dancing with her, taking couple's photos, and then taking her for a romantic drive out under the stars?
Instead, all these things actually exhibit a large degree of magical thinking, in treating a corpse like a human being, and obsession bordering on the necrophiliac. You would not claim that this was "respecting the dead" were it not for the fact that it's one of your ideological standard-bearers that is doing it, so you rush to make excuses.
You are not going to argue me out of my disgust by claiming that I'm that I'm "intolerant" and "lack respect" for Rick Santorum. I've always lacked respect for Rick Santorum. His 1994 election to the Senate was one of the things that motivated me to start questioning my commitment to a so-called 'conservative' movement that was losing its collective mind and being taken over by theocrats and ideologues.
No one was 'playing dolly' with a dead fetus. The fetus IS their baby. For them to want to spend a little time with the baby before they had to let it go, is simply part of the grieving process. I'm sorry you can't and won't respect that. As for taking photographs of deceased family members, I don't, but I know people who do.
ReplyDeleteThe Tom Petty video is a good one, but it's not real life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aowSGxim_O8
The Tom Petty video is a good one, but it's not real life.
ReplyDeleteIt's a better representation of what's troubling about this than simply saying they "want[ed] to spend a little time" with the dead fetus. Their manner of spending their time took the form of treating it as if it were a living baby, wrapping it up, singing to it, and then making their children do the same, all the while snapping family photographs to remember that happy time when they were in possession of a corpse. "Here, children, take this dead fetus and now you must entertain the same magical thinking we do and pretend that this dead fetus is your living sibling."
Yes, people used to take photographs of the deceased, and may still do now, but they were clearly memento mori, often with the dead relative laid out on a bier and posed. The difference here is that they were trying to replicate candid shots with a corpse. To me, there is a wide gulf between treating the dead as if they are dead, and engaging in magical thinking where one treats the dead as if they are alive and forces one's own children to play along.
The only reason why this topic is of interest at all is that you've staked out the topic that this is the pro-life version of "respecting the dead". But that version includes a great deal of magical thinking, and so seems to underlie the same sort of magical thinking that treats a fetus at any stage of development as nothing but a baby in miniature. It's interesting for what it shows of the psychology of the anti-choice movement.
Again you over analyze. No one pretends their deceased relative is alive. They mourn their dead. They touch, they hold, they love, they let go.
ReplyDeleteYour idea of respecting the dead, in the case of a dead baby, is to 'humanely dispose' of it. Just drop it in a red biohazard bag and haul it off with the bloody gauze from the OR.
As for the Santorum's, it's there life, and it was there choice. They proven to have more respect for the dead than you do for the living.
Again you over analyze. No one pretends their deceased relative is alive.
ReplyDeleteBut that's what the Santorums were doing. They were treating their fetus as if it were a living baby and forcing their children to play along.
Your idea of respecting the dead, in the case of a dead baby, is to 'humanely dispose' of it. Just drop it in a red biohazard bag and haul it off with the bloody gauze from the OR.
Well, actually I was thinking of the funeral home arrangements mentioned in the original article that the Santorums chose to forgo, but no doubt you know what's in my mind better than I do.
As for the Santorum's, it's there life, and it was there choice.
I'm not disputing this. I'm just saying that their choice was a questionable one to my mind, and illustrative of the fundamental magical thinking that lies at the root of the anti-choice movement. I guess in your world all "choices" are equal until the point when it comes to chose to abort.
They proven to have more respect for the dead than you do for the living.
Actually, I'd say we're about equivalent on that score, except that I'm somewhat less confused. They treat the dead like the living and I treat the living like the living.
The linked articles imply that Karen Santorum had an INDUCED abortion. That's not what happened, so stop lying about it.
ReplyDelete"After resisting at first, she allowed doctors to give her the drug Pitocin to speed the birth. Gabriel lived just two hours." -The New York Times, May 22, 2005
Pitocin is a proprietary trade name of the drug oxytocin, which is used to induce cervical dilation.
Karen Santorum states CLEARLY that she went to the hospital WITH contractions caused by the life threatening infection. The baby was born alive prematurely (he lived two hours) as a result of an infection that was caused by a surgery intended to SAVE THE BABY'S LIFE. This was NOT an abortion.It had nothing to do with abortion. It was a pre-mature birth. I know that pro-aborts would love for this to become about abortion but the only way that can happen is for them to straight up lie about it.
ReplyDeleteFeline Nursery - that is a quote from the authoer of the NYT article. I haven't read the book to know if it is indeed reality.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, Mrs. Santorum went into premature labor, due to an infection. She did NOT have an induced abortion. Even IF she did have pitocin to speed up the imminent delivery of her son, it was so the antibiotics could be given to her sooner. Either way, baby Gabriel didn't have a chance. They did EVERYTHING they could to save his life. In the end, they couldn't, so they had to save hers.
Deanna Parker - They'll keep lying about it, and we'll keep calling them on it.
I googled "Rick Santorum Hypocrite" and the leftist blogs are claiming that the Santorums' tragic experience was a "partial-birth abortion"!!!!! The incredible ignorance of that is astounding! They are even claiming that Rick knowingly CHOSE a partial-birth abortion to save his wife's life!!! It's just disgusting what the left is doing with this tragic story!
ReplyDeleteThey are also claiming that the surgery done to save the baby's life was actually done to save MOM's life because she was choosing to continue an "obviously lethal pregnancy" with a "fetus" (baby) that was "going to die anyway".
They are reaching so desperately far to turn this into a story that will vilify Santorum and help their pro-death agenda that they have veered so far into the realm of "magical thinking" that there really is no hope of drawing them back to reality. They really believe their own lies and spin. So so pathetic.
My sincere condolences to the Santorum family. Such a personal tragedy shouldn't be fodder for vile blood thirsty abort-fans to twist into some sick fantasy to serve their own ends.
And no, NULL, Momento Mori photographs weren't ONLY of the deceased laid out in coffins or beds "obviously deceased". Google it. They were "dressed up" washed and their hair done. They were often set on chairs and couches and their family and/or siblings (including children and infants) arranged around them. They were made to look like they were simply napping, or propped up with their eyes sewed open to look alive! Why? Because many people then couldn't afford to take a photo every year or so, so when a loved one died was often the ONLY time they would ever have a photo taken of them. It was a "last chance" to remember them kind of thing. The same thing rings true when a baby dies inutero or just after being born. They've had ZERO real photos taken of them until their birth so it's the ONLY chance you have of getting photos to remember him/her by. So yes, in the same spirit of momento mori families will "dress up" their child and arrange him/her with her family and siblings (even children and toddlers) and take as many photos as possible before they are laid to rest. Also it is the ONLY TIME their father, siblings, and other family members will ever get to hold and cuddle them since they've been inside mom until now.
It is incredibly heartless and cruel of you NULL to seek to denigrate and belittle this family's (and all others who suffer losses like this) grief and loss and desire to remember their child in a setting other than a coffin or hospital. They seek to remember their child's short LIFE, not their tragic death. You are evil NULL to compare this simple desire and attempt to remember a LIFE lived to necrophilia. God save you! I will always treasure the few pictures I have of my nephew who was born still last Sept. THANK GOD his mother wasn't as twisted as you!
a few examples for the ignorant:
http://cogitz.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/pm-33.jpg
http://cogitz.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/dd.jpg
this boy had eyes painted on his lids to make him appear alive:
http://cogitz.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/eyes.jpg
You wouldn't know this photo was taken post-mortem unless you were told. (hint: the flowers baby is holding give it away)
http://cogitz.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/264.jpg
This one is similar to the pics we take of our lost angels today:
http://cogitz.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/264.jpg
Arranged to appear to be playing "house" with their dollies:
http://cogitz.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/1398088982_f939114c53_o.jpg
TheChristianHippie - If Rick Santorum hadn't thrown his hat in the ring for President, we wouldn't even know about Gabriel. The pro-aborts will do whatever they have to, including spreading blatant lies, to protect their agenda.
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting the info on Memento Mori, as I was not familiar with the term. Though it wouldn't be my thing to take pictures of deceased loved ones, i can understand and respect people that do.
For anyone that is hesitant to go to the links posted, I looked, it wasn't bad.
The 2nd to last link "similar to the pics we take of our lost angels today" is a copy of the previous link.
Don't let Null jerk you around too much, he tends to enjoy making people chase their tails as if they were dogs.
Oops! Thanks :) Here it is:
ReplyDeletehttp://cogitz.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/117.jpg
And thanks Anti-Abortion Gang :) That person was just too cruel.
I guess those that call it a partial birth abortion aren't aware that in those cases the baby is stabbed in the base of the skull with scissors so his brain can be extracted and his skull crushed! Thank you for being as outraged by these lies as I was.
ReplyDeleteThanks Beate. I think they are aware, they just don't care. Many pro-aborts still defend partial birth abortion.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but I think they were trying to insinuate that Mrs. Santorum had an induction abortion. If they want to make a point, they should stick to the correct terminology.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what they were trying to accomplish. By spreading the lie that Karen Santorum had an induced abortion (which she did not have), they were attempting to make Rick Santorum look like a hypcrite (which he is not).
ReplyDeleteartificially induced labor specificaly to expell the fetus and save the life of the mother? LOL...sounds like an abortion to me.
ReplyDeleteThe doctors shouldbe proseuted for intervening and not letting nature take it's course ... including killing his wife.
If god had wanted her to live, he'd have had her have a spontaneous abortion, not a doctor's intervention.
You phonies will dance and jive around this till you're virgin takes a dump. But it doesn't change anything. Hypocrite!!!
Where did you read her labor was induced, HuffPoo? Jezebel? Exactly the opposite is true in fact.
ReplyDelete"I begged the doctors to stop my labor, but they said it would be malpractice".
Karen went into spontaneous labor. Nature *did* take it's course.
TAAG is distorting this case just as the pro-choice crowd is distorting this case. Please see:
ReplyDeletehttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E6DB1F30F931A15756C0A9639C8B63&pagewanted=all
"After resisting at first, she allowed doctors to give her the drug Pitocin to speed the birth. Gabriel lived just two hours."
Pitocin causes contractions of the uterus. Therefore, Karen did not let nature take its course. And we don't know for sure whether or not the baby would have survived if Pitocin hadn't been given. Why do you not believe other doctors when they say that the mother would die if they didn't end the pregnancy (like Karen's doctors ended her pregnancy) but you believe Karen's doctor's opinion on this matter? TAAG is distorting the truth on this issue.
"We do not want women to die, and would do whatever it took to keep that from occurring. Kind of bites to be pro-choice right now, doesn't it?"
ReplyDeleteSounds like you're now pro-choice yourself! Do whatever it takes to keep that from occurring? How about abortion???
ph1 - I have not read Karen's book, have you? From the articles that I have read, the events which occurred are as follows:
ReplyDelete1. Karen had surgery to correct a fatal fetal defect.
2. Karen developed an infection after the surgery.
3. Karen was given antibiotics, which caused her to go into premature labor.
If Pitocin was used, and it probably was, it was used to speed up the labor which began as a result of the antibiotics. Without the antibiotics, Karen would have died, and the baby would have died anyway.
"And we don't know for sure whether or not the baby would have survived if Pitocin hadn't been given." Actually we do. The baby was not viable, and labor was in progess. All the Pitocin did, was speed the process.
"Why do you not believe other doctors when they say that the mother would die if they didn't end the pregnancy (like Karen's doctors ended her pregnancy) but you believe Karen's doctor's opinion on this matter?" Because I've read documention of cases like 'Delores', in a previous post. http://theantiabortiongang.blogspot.com/2011/12/abortion-gang-promotes-late-term.html
Trust women? You're out of your mind.
yauh24 - What 'pro-choice' stands for, is the choice to kill a fetus for any reason the mother chooses. That would be you.
ReplyDeleteYes, I am pro-choice. That means I stand for a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason she chooses. If she chooses only to terminate her pregnancy if this is medically necessary in order for her to stay alive, I fully support that.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe in a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy if this is medically necessary in order for her stay alive?
Only if the woman's life is in imminent danger. What I do not support, is terminating a pregnancy, i.e. killing a fetus, for any reason she chooses.
ReplyDeleteTAAG -- In that case, I commend you for your reasonableness on this issue. Even as we disagree about whether a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy for her own reasons, we can agree that a woman's life is too valuable to sacrifice for the sake of ideological purity. If a woman's life is in imminent danger, doctors should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy if that's what it takes to save her.
ReplyDeleteIt should be noted, though, that this is not Rick Santorum's position. As a signatory to the Personhood USA pledge, Santorum is committed to the view that abortion procedures can be banned "without exception and without compromise." This would eliminate the typical exceptions written into standard legislation that curtails the ability of doctors to perform abortions (e.g. "except in the case of rape, incest, or risk to the woman's life").
While Personhood USA claims that their proposed personhood laws would still allow for the termination of pregnancy in order to save a woman's life insofar as "the death of [the] innocent child [would be] an unintended tragedy rather than an intentional killing," many legal scholars -- pro-choice and anti-choice alike -- disagree.
Given that the legal murkiness here is undeniable, I believe that any anti-abortion advocate who values women's lives should reject Personhood USA's proposals. Insofar as you recognize that a woman's life is more valuable than ideological purity, I would expect you to agree that there must be an explicit exception clause written into any proposal to curtail women's access to abortions that clearly permits such procedures to be performed in cases where the woman's life is in imminent danger.
Here is PersonhoodUSA's clarification of this issue:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.personhoodusa.com/press-release/personhood-usa-responds-%E2%80%9Clife-mother%E2%80%9D-question-presidential-pledge
What the pledge states, is that abortions should not be performed intentionally. If as in Karen's case, the baby dies as a result of treatment of the mother, it is not intentional, but rather spontaneous. To "go in" and kill the baby, and then dismember it to get it out, is wrong and unneccesary.
TAAG- yes, that's where I got the quote from. While PersonhoodUSA CLAIMS that their proposed legislation would still allow for the "unintentional" death of the "innocent child," legal scholars -- pro-choice and anti-choice alike -- disagree with that claim.
ReplyDeleteTake this quote from Deborah H. Bell, a professor of law at the University of Mississipi: “Suppose that (a pregnant woman) is warned not to exercise too vigorously, goes running and miscarries – she could arguably be guilty of manslaughter for negligently endangering another person. By making a fertilized egg a ‘person’ it can have all sort of unintended consequences.”
Willfully terminating a pregnancy with the knowledge that this will endanger the fetus -- even if this is to protect the woman's life -- could be prosecuted as an even more egregious offense. You don't need the malicious intent to kill a person to be guilty of a crime such as criminally negligent manslaughter or voluntary manslaughter.
Again, the legal murkiness here is undeniable. Accordingly, I believe that any anti-abortion advocate who values women's lives should reject Personhood USA's proposals.
Insofar as you recognize that a woman's life is more valuable than ideological purity, I would expect you to agree that there must be an explicit exception clause written into any proposal to curtail women's access to abortions that clearly permits such procedures to be performed in cases where the woman's life is in imminent danger.
Do you not see the woman in Prof Bell's statement as responsible for her baby's death? I do. Why shouldn't she be prosecuted?
ReplyDeleteName an instance when a pregnancy would need to be terminated to save a woman's life? I can't think of any, and I thought perhaps you had a specific scenario you could share.
I value both the woman and the fetus. If both can be saved, awesome. It's not always possible though, as is the case with Karen Santorum.
I don't see Personhood ever passing without exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
TAAG- Yes, of course I see the woman in Prof. Bell's statement as responsible for the miscarriage (though there's a bit of confusion about whether her run should be interpreted as obviously violating the doctor's recommendation not to exercise "too vigorously"). That much is written into the hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteBut I do not think she should be prosecuted because being responsible for a miscarriage is not a crime. It WOULD be a crime if Personhood passed, which would create a tidal wave of state control over women's decisions: not just whether women have access to abortions, but how much exercise women are allowed to do, what foods women are allowed to eat, places where women are allowed to go, etc. etc. I'm not a libertarian by any stretch, but that's far too much state interference in the private lives of individuals for me. It also seems that I'm not alone there, as these kinds of concerns were likely a major reason that Personhood was voted down by the overwhelmingly anti-choice people of Mississippi.
Instances when a pregnancy would need to be terminated to save a woman's life include ectopic pregnancy, severe heart problems, etc.
I agree that Personhood is unlikely to pass insofar as it eliminates the possibility of exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Obviously, as a pro-choice advocate, I think that's a good thing. For some anti-choice advocates like yourself, I take that to be a good thing as well. But there are some hardcore anti-choice advocates -- like Rick Santorum -- who think this is a bad thing and are doing all they can to try to get it passed. Their efforts should be resisted by anyone who values women's lives.
Wow, I think I will write although the posts are old. It is unbelievable how someone can compare this case with an elective abortion. We pro-lifers believe abortion should be allowed in one case ionly, to save the womans live. Whether that is an infection caused by trying to save a baby, breast cancer during pregnancy (when it is highly malignant) or an ectopic pregnancy is irrelevant. We are not going against what we have always said, since we have never said the fetus is more important than the mother, just that it isn't less important.
ReplyDeleteAborting to save a womans live has never been controvercial for us, it will never be, and it is not like an elective abortion, whose only intent is to kill the fetus, not savce the mother.