Is Rick Santorum's Religious Extremism a Deal Breaker for Voters?

  • News
  • Thread starter ThomasT
  • Start date
In summary: Apparently Rick thinks that scientists aren't moral and need to be "checked"He didn't say scientists are not moral. He said they are amoral. That is (my opinion) a valid criticism. It is a valid criticism of many human constructs. Businesses are, or can be, amoral; sometimes business can be downright immoral. So can science. The Tuskegee syphilis study was pretty repugnant.This inherent amorality of human constructs is why we need to regulate them. Businesses need to be constrained in what they can and cannot do. So does medical research, weapons research, and just about any other scientific research that unconstrained could adversely
  • #71
jduster said:
Well, rape does not change the moral dilemma abortion, pro-life or pro-choice. If the fetus is not a life, it's not a life. But if it is a life, then aborting it solely on the ground that its father was a rapist, is murder. But its inconsistent to say, if the fetus is a life, that its killing an innocent life, but its not killing an innocent life if it was procreated by rape.

While, I'm not against contraception or pre-marital sex, those are just his personal beliefs - not ideas he is actually proposing to make law.
You think he wouldn't appoint supreme court judges that would vote his way?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Evo said:
You think he wouldn't appoint supreme court judges that would vote his way?
People who vote for presidential candidates without considering their capacity for judicial appointments are ignorant, and are endangering the rest of us. Some powers are best left entrusted to people with a bit of intelligence.
 
  • #73
jduster said:
I'm not a Republican, but I personally favor Santorum over the more extreme candidates like Obama, Newt, and RonPaul.

Obama is about as 'extreme' as the sport of golf. He is sadly centrist, even on the American political spectrum. Just because he's to the left of Hitler doesn't mean he's akin to Stalin...
 
  • #74
Angry Citizen said:
Obama is about as 'extreme' as the sport of golf. He is sadly centrist, even on the American political spectrum. Just because he's to the left of Hitler doesn't mean he's akin to Stalin...

I guess it is all relative.

Obama certainly is not communist. And he's to the right of many anarchists/socialists/OWS, but he's too far to the left for ME.

What views set the polar ends are more agreed upon than what views establish the center.
 
  • #75
jduster said:
I guess it is all relative.

Obama certainly is not communist. And he's to the right of many anarchists/socialists/OWS, but he's too far to the left for ME.

What views set the polar ends are more agreed upon than what views establish the center.

In what way is he too far to the left for you? I mean, if you believe Santorum is a moderate... *shrug* I think there's some misconceptions you have about politics in general. I'd sure like to correct them.
 
  • #76
Santorum is apparently in favor of the, considered by some to be, exorbitant prices charged by big pharma. Definitely a basically status quo guy, imo, and a self-avowed religious fanatic as well. Imo, we would see no positive changes under the direction of somebody like Santorum.
 
  • #77
hmm, I guess that's how I feel too. He seems like he is too much under the sway of his religion.
 
  • #78
jduster said:
Well, rape does not change the moral dilemma abortion, pro-life or pro-choice. If the fetus is not a life, it's not a life. But if it is a life, then aborting it solely on the ground that its father was a rapist, is murder. But its inconsistent to say, if the fetus is a life, that its killing an innocent life, but its not killing an innocent life if it was procreated by rape.
The controversy is not whether or not an embryo or a foetus is alive (it evidently is just like skin cells, gametes etc) the question is whether or not it is a person. Abortion is only wrong if you think that an embryo or foetus is deserving of person hood and where ever you want to argue that point you're going to need evidence to back up the claim. "Personhood begins at conception because that's when an intangible, immaterial, unverifiable, unevidenced soul attaches to it" is not a valid argument but it's the one that many pro-life groups use.
 
  • #79
turbo said:
People who vote for presidential candidates without considering their capacity for judicial appointments are ignorant, and are endangering the rest of us. Some powers are best left entrusted to people with a bit of intelligence.

What are you suggesting as an alternative to our process?
 
  • #80
WhoWee said:
What are you suggesting as an alternative to our process?
We don't need an alternative. We need to have informed voters that will understand that their vote could put somebody in the white house who will appoint extremists to the supreme court. Santorum opposes all abortion, even in the case of rape or incest (familial abuse), so what would be his "litmus test" for Federal judges? Voters need to consider what kinds of appointments a President might make before pulling that lever. The power to appoint Federal judges for life-terms is not one to be taken lightly.
 
  • #81
turbo said:
We don't need an alternative. We need to have informed voters that will understand that their vote could put somebody in the white house who will appoint extremists to the supreme court. Santorum opposes all abortion, even in the case of rape or incest (familial abuse), so what would be his "litmus test" for Federal judges? Voters need to consider what kinds of appointments a President might make before pulling that lever. The power to appoint Federal judges for life-terms is not one to be taken lightly.

I'm certain there are Conservatives who fear appointments favoring the Left accordingly.
 
  • #82
Last edited:
  • #84
jduster said:
While, I'm not against contraception or pre-marital sex, those are just his personal beliefs - not ideas he is actually proposing to make law.

Are you certain of that? Here is the actual Rick Santorum quote:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

His first sentence seems to indicate that he'd talk about contraception as president in some sort of official capacity.

And then, here is a note from a Washington Post article:
In his Missouri victory speech Tuesday night, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum devoted a substantial chunk of his remarks to the Obama administration’s decision to mandate birth control coverage with very limited exceptions for Catholic employers.

This would be a case where his personal opposition to birth control would spill into public policy.
 
  • #85
Jack21222 said:
jduster said:
While, I'm not against contraception or pre-marital sex, those are just his personal beliefs - not ideas he is actually proposing to make law.
Are you certain of that? Here is the actual Rick Santorum quote:
“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
His first sentence seems to indicate that he'd talk about contraception as president in some sort of official capacity.

And then, here is a note from a Washington Post article:
In his Missouri victory speech Tuesday night, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum devoted a substantial chunk of his remarks to the Obama administration’s decision to mandate birth control coverage with very limited exceptions for Catholic employers.
This would be a case where his personal opposition to birth control would spill into public policy.
Supposing he did get in even if he didn't try or didn't succeed in pushing through laws against the sale of contraceptions or having pre-martial sex there's a lot he could do to damage contraceptive use and abortion in the US such as scrapping sex-ed, defunding planned parenthood etc.
 
  • #86
Jack21222 said:
Are you certain of that? Here is the actual Rick Santorum quote:



His first sentence seems to indicate that he'd talk about contraception as president in some sort of official capacity.

And then, here is a note from a Washington Post article:


This would be a case where his personal opposition to birth control would spill into public policy.

Are we going to analyze every word a candidate has ever spoken in this election - and regardless of when and where statements were made?
 
  • #87
WhoWee said:
Are we going to analyze every word a candidate has ever spoken in this election - and regardless of when and where statements were made?
:rolleyes: No but looking at the words the candidates say regarding specific issues when those issues are brought up for discussion seems logical.
 
  • #88
Ryan_m_b said:
:rolleyes: No but looking at the words the candidates say regarding specific issues when those issues are brought up for discussion seems logical.

I just wanted to check - because I'm in favor of analyzing every word Senator, candidate, President-elect, and President Obama has ever spoken.
 
  • #89
Ryan_m_b said:
... in the US such as scrapping sex-ed,
Aside from funding, how is the federal government going to have any control over sex-ed (or music or gym or social studies) in local school systems?

defunding planned parenthood etc.
As it should be. There's obviously a big social divide in the country on abortion. The natural resolution was arrived at years ago: abortion will be legal, but those who disagree don't have to pay for it through taxes. Planned Parenthood is a flagrant federally funded abuse of that deal.
 
  • #90
mheslep said:
Aside from funding, how is the federal government going to have any control over sex-ed (or music or gym or social studies) in the local school system?

I find this statement funny. "Aside from the main method the federal government controls education, how will the federal government control education?"

As it should be. There's obviously a big social divide in the country on abortion. The natural resolution was arrived at years ago: abortion will be legal, but those who disagree don't have to pay for it through taxes. Planned Parenthood is a flagrant federally funded abuse of that deal.

Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortions, and none of their federal funding goes to abortion. Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/
 
  • #91
mheslep said:
Aside from funding, how is the federal government going to have any control over sex-ed (or music or gym or social studies) in local school systems?
I defer to Char's answer for that.
mheslep said:
As it should be. There's obviously a big social divide in the country on abortion. The natural resolution was arrived at years ago: abortion will be legal, but those who disagree don't have to pay for it through taxes. Planned Parenthood is a flagrant federally funded abuse of that deal.
So if someone disagrees with an issue they should be allowed to decide not to have their taxes go towards it? By that logic pacifists could withdraw their tax fund the military, greenpeace members could withdraw their tax for any non-green energy etc. Why one rule for one issue and another rule for everything else? I also defer to Char's for this one.
 
  • #92
mheslep said:
Planned Parenthood is a flagrant federally funded abuse of that deal.

That's a statement that demands a source if I ever saw one!
 
  • #93
daveb said:
That's a statement that demands a source if I ever saw one!

Seconded.
 
  • #94
Char. Limit said:
I find this statement funny. "Aside from the main method the federal government controls education, how will the federal government control education?"
Then it should be easy to show where the federal govt. has shut down some other primary education offerings in the past? The feds account for ~10% of education spending in the US, unlike highway spending and the like.

Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortions, and none of their federal funding goes to abortion. Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/
No, FC points out the law, it does not say the reality is that no fed funding goes to abortion.

Here are the facts:
1. Federal law states since the 1976 Hyde amendment that federal money may not used for abortions
2. PP received $363.2 million (by admission) in 2009 from government (federal and state), a third of its total funds.
3. PP performed 329,445 abortion procedures in 2010 (by admission), or about 40% of all US abortions recorded by the CDC.

Federal law also says, for example, that the Senate shall do a budget each year, but it has not for the last three.
 
  • #95
mheslep said:
1. Federal law states since the 1976 Hyde amendment that federal money may not used for abortions
That wiki link doesn't say that all tax spending cannot be used for abortion where people don't want it, it's not even a permanent law. Where specifically is your evidence that funding of planned parenthood comes under this agreement? I'm not saying there isn't any but this isn't enough.
mheslep said:
2. PP received $363.2 million (by admission) in 2009 from government (federal and state), a third of its total funds.
3. PP performed *329,445 abortion procedures in 2010 (by admission), or about 40% of all US abortions recorded by the CDC..
And in response to this...
Char. Limit said:
Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortions, and none of their federal funding goes to abortion. Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/
So what if 1/3 of funding comes from the government? If the 3% of PP budget that goes to abortion doesn't come from this third then what does it matter?
 
  • #96
Ryan_m_b said:
... So if someone disagrees with an issue they should be allowed to decide not to have their taxes go towards it? By that logic pacifists could withdraw their tax fund the military, greenpeace members could withdraw their tax for any non-green energy etc. Why one rule for one issue and another rule for everything else?
I did not say someone. I asserted such a resolution where there is a "major social divide in the country", in this case with split opinion for decades. Then, in such a situation, I suggested a legislative, lawful, i.e. democratic, resolution on government spending, not civil disobedience on tax payment.
 
  • #97
Sex-education, contraception, and abortion (within limits) has been the law of the land for quite a while. Santorum would like to erase all that and send us back to the 50s. Women deserve better from our chief executive. Many on the right seem to want to send women back to the civil servitude that they had been in 50+ years ago. It may play well with their base in the primaries, but it will kill them in the general election. If Santorum gets the nod, he doesn't stand a chance against Obama.

Even the serial-cheater Gingrich and his trophy-Barbi would have a better shot.
 
  • #98
Ryan_m_b said:
That wiki link doesn't say that all tax spending cannot be used for abortion where people don't want it, it's not even a permanent law.
Right, it is not permanent but as you must have seen Hyde is routinely written into spending bills every year.
Where specifically is your evidence that funding of planned parenthood comes under this agreement? I'm not saying there isn't any but this isn't enough.
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/positions/title-x-americas-family-planning-program-855.htm family planning clinic, funded out of the HHS budget (H/T FC):
HHS said:
By law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.
And in response to this...

So what if 1/3 of funding comes from the government? If the 3% of PP budget that goes to abortion doesn't come from this third then what does it matter?
I find PP's figure of 3% highly dubious (it is not Fact Check's figure). I don't accept that the money is, or can be, fire walled off like that inside the same organization.
 
  • #99
mheslep said:
I find PP's figure of 3% highly dubious (it is not Fact Check's figure). I don't accept that the money is, or can be, fire walled off like that inside the same organization.
Assuming that are right on this why don't you think it has been challenged?
 
  • #100
turbo said:
Sex-education, contraception, and abortion (within limits) has been the law of the land for quite a while. Santorum would like to erase all that and send us back to the 50s. Women deserve better from our chief executive. Many on the right seem to want to send women back to the civil servitude that they had been in 50+ years ago. It may play well with their base in the primaries, but it will kill them in the general election. If Santorum gets the nod, he doesn't stand a chance against Obama.

Even the serial-cheater Gingrich and his trophy-Barbi would have a better shot.

I'll assume this post is your opinion?
 
  • #101
Ryan_m_b said:
Assuming that are right on this why don't you think it has been challenged?
:confused: Challenged by whom? FC suggested 10%. PP has been under investigation by the a Congressional Oversight and Investigations subcommittee since Sept 15, "relating to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion". Kansas PP garnered multiple felony indictments for falsifying pregnancy reports until the charges were dismissed because the paperwork disappeared in the Kansas AG's office.
 
  • #102
WhoWee said:
I'll assume this post is your opinion?
You can safely assume that, WhoWee, but if you will search Santorum's statements, you will find how radical he is.
 
  • #104
Why don't you summarize this fairly -to be fair?
 
  • #105
mheslep said:
I find PP's figure of 3% highly dubious (it is not Fact Check's figure). I don't accept that the money is, or can be, fire walled off like that inside the same organization.

If you find it so dubious, surely you can find an equally reliable source stating otherwise.
 

Similar threads

News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
9
Replies
293
Views
34K
News Politics - playing the religious card
3
Replies
74
Views
9K
News Can Religious Institutions Discriminate in Hiring Practices?
2
Replies
64
Views
7K
News What Are the Consequences of the Debt Deal for the US Economy?
Replies
27
Views
4K
News Did Scott Brown's Win Signal a Shift in American Political Landscape?
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
News Palin pick an insult to our intelligence
29
Replies
1K
Views
90K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
In The United States Today Science, Is Under Attack As Never Before
Replies
12
Views
3K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
9K
News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?
Replies
6
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top