Does Rick Santorum's Argument Make Any Sense?

Jump to Last Post 1-17 of 17 discussions (64 posts)

74
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Rick Santorum talking on a Christian news show states that Obama should oppose abortion because he is a black man.
I swear I watched this 3x and the logic still makes zero sense ... to me. If someone can explain, please do! Thx. MM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxgB7pwbO7k
reply report
1. 60
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's simple, black people for so long were denied basic rights life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just because of the color of their skin, the same is happening to the unborn when they are aborted without being given a choice, without the protection that is guaranteed by all in the constitution, the rights that blacks fought so hard to achieve.
  
  Besides, everyone knows that abortion was intended to be used to control the population of black people.
  reply report
  61
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  WHAT?????
  
  'everyone knows that abortion was intended to be used to control the population of black people.'
  
  That's an irrational statement at so many levels, it's incredible.
  reply report
  60
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Irrational? How so? Do you know anything about Margret Danger? Read the link I posted.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You act as though Margaret Sanger herself invented abortion. Since it's been around for as long as women have been getting pregnant, your argument that it was intended to control the black population is ridiculous. You and Rick should get along famously.
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Abortion goes back 2300 years! Are you kidding me? Do you have a single thought you didn't get from Glenn Beck?
  reply report
  60
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So so was slavery but you kins seem to think America invented it. Sanger's fouding of planned parenthood was to implment her belief ineugenics.
  reply report
  61
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The existence of Glenn Beck proves ONE man is a fool. It doesn't prove anything about ALL republicans. Sanger has been dead for almost 50 years and her opinions in 1930 are not those of the modern woman. The ability of the right to seize on 100 year-old statements of pioneers in the women's movement to distort modern politics is beyond irrational.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sanger was a eugenicist and saw all none whites and even Eastern and Southern Europeans as inferior to Anglo-Saxon "racial stock." She was a monster whose goal was to decrease the birth rate among the inferior yet is still heralded by those wonderful modern woman as a champion. It isn't Sanger's ideas that are the problem today it is that those ideas are woven into the fabric of contemporary women's politics.
  reply report
  61
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  BULL! Sangers ideas from 1920 to 1940 which wingnuts want to call racism and eugenics are a side show. A distraction intended to drag the conversation away from real issues. If we are talking about a womans right to control over her own body and you wish to disagree with the modern movement, quote a current leader. Or at least one who hasn't been dead since the 60's.
  reply report
  60
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well it speaks to the mindset of progressives... they think they are the elite, the only ones that can control the people and get them to do the "right" thing...
  
  "We think that, as my co-author, Thaler and I, that there's a little Homer Simpson in all of us. Sometimes we have self-control problems, sometimes we're impulsive and that in these circumstances, both private and public institutions, without coercing, can make our lives a lot better.
  
  "Once we know that people are human and have some Homer Simpson in them, then there's a lot that can be done to manipulate them." -Cass Sunstein President Obama's regulatory Czar
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "they (progressives) think they are the elite, the only ones that can control the people and get them to do the "right" thing..."
  
  Supporting the women's right to choose is "trying to control people and get them to do the right thing?"
  
  Think about that.
  reply report
  60
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  WSJ today for every 1000 black live births in NY there are 1489 abortions. This is significantly more than whites. I'd say the progressive agenda is right on target!
  reply report
2. 60
  Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  He ends with the statement that he finds it to be inconceivable that a black man would say, we are going to decide who are people and who are not. That could be taken two ways as I am sure he knew before stating it. 1, based upon how the blacks were treated as less than human by the christian whites, how could a black man develop the same attitude about another human. 2, How dare a black man attempt to take over one of the white christian's primary duties, determining who is human and who is not.
  
  It doesn't suprise me that this is going on considering how much success they have had teaching black communities to hate the homosexual community. How dare the white christians determine that a homosexual is less than human and not entitled to the same rights christians enjoy?
  reply report
3. 60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Black babies are more likely to be aborted. Abortion is marketed to black mothers. Until Jesse Jackson entertained presidential aspirations he called abortion a black holocaust. It is simple, really, as a proportion of population blacks abort more often than whites.
  reply report
  60
  Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Rather than allow comprehensive sex education and the availablitity of contreceptives that would decrease abortions, the christian right prefers to keep them coming. Abortions are being forced onto the black communities by the puritanical mindset of the mainstream christian. Rathe than allow proper sex education to be taught they prefer to have babies killed. It gives them something else to feel holier than tho about. Itr never enters their head that they are actually increasing the very thing they want to decrease. Amen.
  reply report
4. 55
  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I took it to be about the numbers. Is it not true that Black Mothers have more abortions?
  
  I would like to point out that there is a subtle accusation of racism going on in this thread here. This is why Holder said we are COWARDS. Its OK to discuss race issues. Stating statistical facts are NOT racist. Attributing those statistics as being characteristic of a specific race is. I don't think this guy was doing the later.
  reply report
74
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
"Everyone" knows abortion was intended to control the black population? I didn't know that. I've never heard that before.
Sounds a lot like Rick Santorum's claim that all biologists agree that life begins at conception. All biologists do NOT agree with that statement at all.
For the record, abortion has been around for centuries. Long before blacks in America.

And for the sake of argument. By this logic, WOMEN should oppose abortion because, like blacks, women were denied full rights and had to fight for the right to vote, a place in the workforce, equal pay, etc.
Surely no one can expect WOMEN as a "class of citizen" to reject abortion on these grounds. That's ludicrous.
reply report
1. 60
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes the founder of planned parenthood Margret Sanger (a liberal) held this view. Read and learn...
  
  http://www.abortionfacts.com/learn/hist … ortion.asp
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Grow up! Do you read anything before you post this drivel? Even basic wikipedia talks about its history.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#History
  
  You are ridiculous.
  reply report
59
BillyDRitchieposted 13 years ago
Specifically, black women should oppose abortion the most, since it is black female babies that are most often aborted....
reply report
82
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
That's not how I read her....
She worked on the Lower East side of Manhattan, where a lot of poor European immigrants lived...

She was trying to help those poor women, who had baby after baby after baby and the husband could not support them all. Plus, those women died young. Hard life for all involved.
reply report
1. 60
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.womensenews.org/story/commen … and-racism
  You should read this then. By all accounts Sanger was insensitive at best and a racist at worst.
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I could say the same about you
  reply report
  60
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You could say anything you want about me but who would listen to a fool?
  reply report
2. 55
  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Read the history. She was a hard core racist.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I've "read the history" and haven't found anything indicating that Sanger was a "hard core racist." Please enlighten me. Sounds like you are trying to smear someone because of your own personal beliefs. If Sanger held racial views that progressive people would disagree with today that may be because she was born in 1876 to a generation in which racial beliefs that are not acceptable today were not uncommon. A racist 100 years ago is one thing and a racist today is something entirely different. The election of Obama has brought a lot of racist cockroaches out of the woodwork.
  reply report
  55
  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  She not only believed in womans reproductive rights and health. She was also a HUGE promoter of eugenics. She believe that only the "Right" people should be reproducing. She believed that abortion could be used as a tool to manage the population. Ensuring that the best genetic lines were being propogated. Sound familiar? The history is there Ralph. You know it. If you choose to read a one sided account of history you will make comments like you have. By the way did you see the latest news on that wonderfull organization she is credited with starting?
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 06135.html
  
  These guys are FEDERALLY FUNDED RALPH. What a waste!
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You said she was "a hard core racist," but you haven't provided evidence of that. Plenty of people jumped on the eugenics bandwagon. For example, James Watson. I don't support eugenics, however, Sanger's main work involved birth control. Don't you agree that drugstores should be allowed to sell condoms and that birth control should be taught in high school sex ed classes. Just where are YOU coming from?
  
  You are trying to smear a good organization just because of misconduct by one individual. Nothing could be more one-sided.
  reply report
  55
  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ralph, anyone interested in the truth can google Margret Sanger, Eugenics, ABCL, The Negro Project that started in Harlem. It's all there.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds to me like you're trying to use ancient history to smear Planned Parenthood and efforts to disseminate information on contraception. It just doesn't was to equate planned parenthood today with eugenics 70 or 80 years ago. If you don't believe in contraception, don't practice it.
  reply report
  55
  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Smearing? Hardly, stating the history is a matter of fact. If you start wrong and don't make corrections you will finnish wrong. Recent events within their organization prove that. Regardless of past or recent events, Federal dollars spent on an organization that supports something as divisive as abortion is unexceptable. If Planned Parenthood is such a worthy cause, they should have NO trouble gettting private donations. Here is an organization that gets a third of it's money from the Federal Government. St Jude hospital gets approximately 14%. Go figure...
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The federal government has thrown $1.5 billion away on "abstinence only" programs. Does that make you happy?
  
  http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/public … ?task=view
  
  "Planned Parenthood receives federal tax dollars through Title X of the Public Health Service Act of 1970. The funding is for reproductive health care services, including family planning, and cannot be directly spent on actual abortion procedures except in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the mother."
  reply report
  55
  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely NOT! Sounds like you and I could have given them that information for FREE! Can you imagine that? Think of that Ralph. 1.5 billion spent on telling people that sex can cause unwanted pregnancy! Again the issue is so divisive the government should NOT be involved monitarily.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, why don't you smear the abstinence only program and stop worrying about Planned Parenthood which provides an effective, useful service to thousands or millions of women.
  reply report
  55
  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  For starters the 1.5 billion number is for all monies spent since 1997 on abstenance programs. Planned Parrenthood can't account for nearly the same amount(1.3 billion) granted by the FED from 2006 to 2008! Futher abstenance until marriage program funding was cut completely out of the Federal Budget in 2010 by the Obama Administration.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Futher abstenance until marriage program funding was cut completely out of the Federal Budget in 2010 by the Obama Administration."
  
  Well, that's good news. It was a complete wast of taxpayer's money which is not the case for medical services for women through Planned Parenthood.
  report
  55
  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Medical services that are completely preventable. A waste of tax payer money. Especially from an organization that has proven capable of loosing 1.3 billion over a two year period. At some point Ralph we are going to have to tighten the purse strings. The spending can't go on forever.
  report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Completely preventable?" ???How and why would you want to do that?
  
  We agree that the purse strings need to be tightened but not even close on which purse strings. I would start with the military budget, not human services.
  report
  55
  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  HOW? That's pretty self explanitory. How much is a condom? Human services? I would consider feeding the hungry human services. I would consider providing temporary housing for the homeless during extreme weather human services. I would consider vacines for the young and elderly human services. I could go on and on with a list of "HUMAN SERVICES" all with groups clamoring for more money. Most having a better track record than PP.
  
  Cutting the Military. Its all that comes up with liberals when budget cuts come up. Your going to have to come to terms with that unrealistic approach. It's not the only place to cut. Its not the only place with waste. I seem to recall the Democrat led congress FORCING airplains on a US Military that didn't want them! You look at 1.3 BILLION dollars unaccounted for, spent on preventing pregnancy for people who treat sex like a sport and you say "I would start with the military budget" UBELIEVABLE! Whats more surprising is that I'm no longer surprised.
  report
82
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
Leave it to Santorum to make it a race issue.

It's a FREEDOM issue. Freeodm of life. Choice. Destiny.

Unless you want to live their lives FOR them, take care of the babies FOR them, you have 0 say.
reply report
1. 59
  BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I guess the idea of taking responsibility for your own actions is a bit too much to ask, huh?
  
  Just kill it and get rid of it.....yeah, that's much better....
  reply report
87
I am DB Cooperposted 13 years ago
I think Santorum's argument exposes an underlying "us versus them" mentality that still causes a major rift in race relations to this day. Is Obama, who is identified as a black man in the media even though he's just as "white" as he is "black", supposed to oppose abortions because it was historically used to suppress the black population or because it currently affects the black population disproportionately? The hidden inference is that Barack Obama has a vested interest in the population of one race over another.

It may not seem that way on the surface, but what Santorum said is divisive politics in its ugliest form. This is the same kind of thing that went on for decades with the "Southern Strategy", which the GOP officially apologized for 7 or 8 years ago.
reply report
69
Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago
Seems to me Sarnorum's comment was racist, suggesting that Obama's position would or should be determined by his race. Santorum is an arsehole.
reply report
1. 60
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Would you think he was an anti-semite for assuming a Jew would be against returning Jerusalem to the Palestinians?
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It would be just as big a mistake for Santorum to assume that because someone was Jewish that they would have a particular position on Palestine as it was for him to impute an opinion on ANY subject to Obama because he's black.
  reply report
82
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
"Santorum is an arshole."

Big Time!
reply report
1. 60
  Rajab Nsubugaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So is abortion, Big Time!
  reply report
  82
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You don't like it? Don't have one!
  reply report
0
SirDentposted 13 years ago
An interview with Sanger by Mike Wallace. You can read the transcript or click to watch the v ideo.

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/vi … ret_t.html
reply report
1. 69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The worst thing in the interview is Mike Wallace advertising Philip Morris cigarettes at a time when anyone with a brain in their head was aware of the health hazards of smoking. Margaret Sanger acquitted herself perfectly well.
  
  What's your point, Sir Dent?
  reply report
74
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
I see absolutely nothing in that interview that makes me believe Margaret Sanger was a racist. She was a nurse, a woman who grew up in a family of 11 whose mother died early.
She advocated birth control -- not abortion.

BTW, the absolute BEST part of the interview is the sponsorship!
Phillip Morris, yes indeedy! And here's the interviewer himself, waxing eloquent on how wonderful Philip Morris CIGARETTES are!
Oh, the irony, the irony!

reply report
60
katiem2posted 13 years ago
It makes no sense to me whatsoever
reply report
74
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Thank you, Katiem.
I feel better, like maybe I'm not losing my ability to reason after all !
reply report
1. 60
  katiem2posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No really its crazy to even say that, I think he's the one with reason issues....
  reply report
74
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
oh, i think we all know what his "reasons" (read: motives) are.
reply report
1. 60
  katiem2posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes we do... he def has an agenda
  reply report
74
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
When Black women in America have the personal, educational and economic opportunity to thrive as women and as mothers, perhaps we will see the abortion rate in that demographic segment go down.
reply report
74
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Sanger advocated birth control, not abortion.
The modern equivalent is pro-choice people.
Prevention is preferable!
reply report
0
SirDentposted 13 years ago
Former director of a planned Parenthood clinic.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour … pLRftkoiPQ
reply report
1. 69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds like the same scam the Tea Baggers pulled on ACORN.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No scam. You should read about Abby Johnson. You will then see why she no longer works for PP.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So what does it prove? The scammers destroyed ACORN with some edited, staged entapment videos. But I don't think the same thing will happen to Planned Parenthood. They have much more middle class support.
  reply report
57
Beelzedadposted 13 years ago
Funny, I'm still waiting for any argument from Santorum that does make sense.
reply report

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

Necessary

Features

Marketing

Statistics

Approve All & Submit
Approve Checked Only

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Does Rick Santorum's Argument Make Any Sense?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Does Rick Santorum's Argument Make Any Sense?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies