Santorum Abortion Remark Spurs Incomplete Discussion

So, Rick Santorum is one of the many would-be candidates enmeshed in an interminable prelude to a preview to an announcement of an exploration of maybe running for president one day. You know, he's "staffing up" -- wink, wink! -- in New Hampshire, and junk, and so people have to make the bare minimum of accommodation to "taking him seriously" even though we can all throw money down on the table in the space marked, "This guy will never ever be president."

As a result, comments he recently made about abortion, which would normally go directly to the ether of "Stuff Political Has-Beens Like," became "a thing." Here, for the purposes of recollection, is the Stuff that became a Thing:

For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country.

The shorter version is, of course: blacks were once considered to be three-fifths of a person, so it's terrible that a biracial president can't sympathize in similar fashion with the unborn. Because of the looming 2012 presidential junk, this all got amplified. It first ran to the "Oh my stars and garters, Rick Santorum said something Rick Santorumy to someone" stage. Now we've entered the semi-apologist stage, where various people mansplain to you that this statement was many things -- many objectionable things, even! But it was not -- not! -- a "gaffe." Did anyone say that it was? Whatever. Here's Joe Klein's contribution to this genre:

First, you must understand that Santorum truly believes that abortion is murder--at any point after conception, even when the mother's health is at risk (as it was in the case of one of his wife's pregnancies). This is an extreme position, but not an implausible one. If you believe that a fetus is a person, then abortion is the denial of its most basic right--the right to exist. According to Santorum, the only other category of Americans whose civil rights were so severely truncated were slaves. He's right about that. Slaves were considered property; there was also that most odious Constitutional assertion that, in terms of representation, blacks counted as 3/5s of a person. Santorum believes that this history should make the descendants of slaves more sensitive to the civil rights of fetuses. There are a great many members of the black church who would agree with him.

Got that? In case it didn't sink in, Klein summarizes it all thusly: "Now, once again, you may not believe that a fetus is a person--but if you do, as Santorum does, this is a perfectly reasonable argument, an argument against limiting the civil rights of anyone according to race or life status."

Yes, okay. But I'll tell you what it isn't. It isn't a "reasonable argument" against "limiting the civil rights of anyone according" to gender. To all the people falling all over themselves to assert the fact that Santorum really believes what he says and that there are others that agree with him -- two facts that no one has actually disputed -- I'll remind you that there actually exists a sizable portion of the population who have consistently made a "reasonable argument" that women are neither chattel nor brood-mares, and that Santorum's non-alignment with that argument is what makes him a radical.

Additionally, it shouldn't be overlooked that if we're comparing fetuses to slaves, we're equating women with amoral slaveowners, and elevating the rights of the fetus over those of the woman to choose whether to proceed with a pregnancy that has significant medical risks above and beyond the actual act of parenting.

I just wanted there to be at least one blog post on the Internet that sort of considered those matters worthy of discussion, okay?

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

 

 

Comments

[Traynor]

12:52 AM on 01/27/2011

When men can become pregnant, then they get to weigh in. Until then they can keep their pious opinions to themselves and stay out of my personal business. Aren't these the "less government" folks?

[TXchristian]

11:23 AM on 01/25/2011

For all you pro-lifers. Abortion is MURDER of the unborn. 'If it is not a BABY then you ain't pregnant" plain and simple!!!

[beckola]

04:52 PM on 01/25/2011

Are you thinking you'll find pro-lifers on here to resonate with? Get back to your snake-handling church, TX"christian".

[morven]

05:44 AM on 01/30/2011

You are entitled to your opinion and that's where it ends.

Decisions a woman makes regarding her body, are none of your business.

[Lucy0808]

08:55 PM on 01/23/2011

It seems that you define a human being differently than me. To be human is far more than a recombinat­ion event. If you don't understand that, you don't understand all that we are geneticall­y, culturally­, and by evolution. You demean human beings by making them a few cells. That is horrific and sad and denies the personhood of the living. We have millions upon millions of humans, let alone other animals, that are in need of having their lives be ones of dignity. And here you are talking about mushy cells. That is the travesty. Your argument may toe the religious line of your faction, but still it is without heart and without pragmaticism for the living.
As a biologist, my point was that you define "life too narrowly". It isn't created at the point of conception­, but continues as life variance by recombinat­ion between a female and male. The individual is half the sequences of each of the parents. The point being, is that it isn't such an individual at that point at all. What makes it so, is its developmen­t into personhood­. That happens as the fetus develops and is born and learns. Being "human and personhood­" is not simply a genetic recombinat­ion event. It is far more and after the fact. That is what makes humans such an amazing species.

[Lucy0808]

08:52 PM on 01/23/2011

I understand that you define life, a human being, differentl­y than me. Your definition is shallow and political.­To be human is far more than a recombinat­ion event. If you don't understand that, you don't understand all that we are geneticall­y, culturally­, and by evolution. You demean human beings by making them a few cells. That is horrific and sad and denies the personhood of the living. We have millions upon millions of humans, let alone other animals, that are in need of having their lives be ones of dignity. And here you are talking about mushy cells. That is the travesty. Your argument may toe the religious line of your faction, but still it is without heart and without pragmaticism for the living.
I am a biologist-­a geneticist­. My point was that you define "life too narrowly". It isn't created at the point of conception­, but continues as life variance by recombinat­ion between a female and male. The individual is half the sequences of each of the parents. The point being, is that it isn't such an individual at that point at all. What makes it so, is its developmen­t into personhood­. That happens as the fetus develops and is born and learns.
Being "human and personhood­" is not simply a genetic recombinat­ion event. It is far more and after the fact. That is what makes humans such an amazing species.

[Lucy0808]

08:50 PM on 01/23/2011

I understand that you define life, a human being, differentl­y than me. Your definition is shallow and political.­To be human is far more than a recombinat­ion event. If you don't understand that, you don't understand all that we are geneticall­y, culturally­, and by evolution. You demean human beings by making them a few cells. That is horrific and sad and denies the personhood of the living. We have millions upon millions of humans, let alone other animals, that are in need of having their lives be ones of dignity. And here you are talking about mushy cells. That is the travesty. Your argument may toe the religious line of your faction, but still it is without heart and without pragmatici­sm for the living.

I am a biologist-­a geneticist­. My point was that you define "life too narrowly". It isn't created at the point of conception­, but continues as life variance by recombinat­ion between a female and male. The individual is half the sequences of each of the parents. The point being, is that it isn't such an individual at that point at all. What makes it so, is its developmen­t into personhood­. That happens as the fetus develops and is born and learns.

Being "human and personhood­" is not simply a genetic recombinat­ion event. It is far more and after the fact. That is what makes humans such an amazing species.

[Lucy0808]

08:33 PM on 01/23/2011

“I understand that you define life, a human being, differentl­y than me. Your definition is shallow and political.­To be human is far more than a recombinat­ion event. If you don't understand that, you don't understand all that we are geneticall­y, culturally­, and by evolution. You demean human beings by making them a few cells. That is horrific and sad and denies the personhood of the living. We have millions upon millions of humans, let alone other animals, that are in need of having their lives be ones of dignity. And here you are talking about mushy cells. That is the travesty. Your argument may toe the religious line of your faction, but still it is without heart and without pragmatici­sm for the living.

I am a biologist-­a geneticist­. My point was that you define "life too narrowly". It isn't created at the point of conception­, but continues as life variance by recombinat­ion between a female and male. The individual is half the sequences of each of the parents. The point being, is that it isn't such an individual at that point at all. What makes it so, is its developmen­t into personhood­. That happens as the fetus develops and is born and learns.

Being "human and personhood­" is not simply a genetic recombinat­ion event. It is far more and after the fact. That is what makes humans such an amazing species.”

[Jefferson Vickers]

06:51 PM on 01/23/2011

I don't think men should even vote on these issues. Having a daughter who's 22 I would never be so callus to allow a bunch of white men to make that decision for her-

Go back to watching dog SANATARIUM

[Frogz]

05:51 PM on 01/23/2011

What a frothy mixture.

[Ramenra]

05:48 PM on 01/23/2011

Well, first off radical is someone on the left and zealot is the word that should be applied to Rick. You'll find that their going far right is to pander to the far right. He has pandered to others his whole political life.

[Tulka2]

03:49 PM on 01/23/2011

Women have complete sovereignty over their bodies.   Period. 

If the American, fundementalist Taliban wants to stifle that fact, tough.  Women in this country are educated and have access to all the sterile, diposable, medical equipment we need to take matters into our own hands... just, btw, as we were doing in women's groups before Roe vs. Wade passed.   We can easily form an underground again.  Fear not.  It will never be again be coat hangers. 

In some ways an underground might even be better.  Doctors wouldn't be put in danger.  These procedures are simple and easily taught in the first couple of months with the proper equipment. .

[Liberty1967]

10:50 PM on 01/25/2011

Most early abortions today aren't even surgical, they're medical via RU...

[Tulka2]

12:25 AM on 01/26/2011

I am glad you know what i am talking about.

[RM Greer]

01:47 PM on 01/23/2011

I believe that we have reached that state of ignorance where men, always stupefied by women has reached another peak. In the past, when women were chattel (actually, a very short time ago and still so in a great deal of the world). Men are still afraid of women and somewhat jealous that it is they, and not us that bring new life into the world. In the past, it was far more convenient to treat women like slaves, and if that did not work, to call the brightest and usually the healers witches or some other muck and murder, pardon, execute them. The bible says that god told adam and eve to be fruitful and multiply. There is nothing there about becoming an entire orchard. The thought of "forcing" a woman to carry to term an child that is the result of rape or incest is beyond repugnant as is making her carry to term a child with any number of conditions the child will not survive with in a very few, agonizing years. And if you are so unconditionally against this, why is it okay for you to have a vasectomy?

[Robert Jackson]

05:21 AM on 01/24/2011

I myself am not nor have i ever been jelous of women having the abilty to carry and give birth to children. As a man i wouldnt want to give birth, but men still play a role. Without men there to fertilize the egg no child would be created. So ladies this should be mute point. I am for women having the right to choose, with married women it should be a joint decision between husband and wife.

[Tulka2]

08:06 PM on 01/26/2011

(moot.  moot point.)   It's always good if a woman has a partner, but it's still the woman's own private body and no man can legally stop a woman from doing what she thinks is best for her and .... maybe... if he's lucky... a child.    He has to prove worthy.   She gets to decide if she will be supported enough having any individual man's child.   It's not equal.  Men are not equal before women.  Life isn't fair.

[SoulPane]

01:08 PM on 01/23/2011

The top reason for abortion is to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Not physical or "mental" danger to the mother, not rape, not incest, not failure of contraception.

Talk about an "inconvenient truth".

[Lucy0808]

01:41 PM on 01/23/2011

You might want to restate your post. You just stated the obvious. Of course a person uses abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy. That is the definition of the decision. An unwanted pregnancy is supported by many reasons and those are personal to the person. Your second sentence would be OK but you added the "not failure of contraception" part. That is a subject that you confused. Its OK, you just made a bit of a mistake.

Abortions will be continually performed by the rich and the middle class regardless what you do or say and regardless if it is legal (which it is) or not. That is the fact. Abortions have gone on for tens of thousands of years in the history of homo sapiens.

If you truely feel so strong about abortions and want to lower the rate, make birth control contraception tools and services easily available to women at a low cost or free. That will lower the rate of pregancies and also the rate of abortions. It is often the religious right that do not help to fund or promote birth control tools and services. It is a sad dilemma for them and hypocritical.

Poor women need help. They need easy access to cheap or free birth control tools and services. They are the ones who pay with their lives and their living childrens' well being. To help poor families, this is critical.

[RM Greer]

01:59 PM on 01/23/2011

Truly excellent, Faved and Fanned.

[SoulPane]

04:18 PM on 01/23/2011

Sure, I'll restate my post:

1) Abortion ends a human life. This is a biological fact.

2) I believe in a woman's right to choose - up to a point.

3) #1 and #2 above may seem to be incompatible points of view to most pro-choice advocates. Most of them believe that only "parasitic tissue" is being removed from the woman's body, and will not concede that a fetus is a human life.

4) I agree that complete and honest sexual education needs to be taught to all children, including contraception methods. Easy and free access to contraception needs to be provided to those who are poor.

5) All children need to taught the basics of biology relating to the conception and development of the embryo and fetus, and the fact that it is human life. This needs to be made clear so that the impact of their sexual behavior is well understood and can have serious negative consequences. As well as the choice to be made when pregnancy occurs.

Agreed?

[NOV42008]

11:55 AM on 01/23/2011

Earlier some someone replied to one of my comments with this question about abortion:
"What does miscarriag­es have to do with abortion?”

I have asked on this subject several times, but maybe can get Denier to respond.
"Who made the decision when a mother have a miscarriage?"

[RM Greer]

01:48 PM on 01/23/2011

I believe that might be the god that most zealots refer too.

[walleymr]

09:13 AM on 01/23/2011

never thought of a zygote as "property"

[TuoulumneFlower]

09:47 AM on 01/23/2011

Do you have the right to control the functioning of YOUR body, or don't you?

[walleymr]

10:13 AM on 01/23/2011

i like to think so

[Captain Hindsight]

12:30 PM on 01/23/2011

Now you are beginning ti understand the "Trickle Down" mentality of the Repubs!

[Curandera]

08:32 AM on 01/23/2011

Mr. Linkins, thank you for posting what the anti-choice camp and the media covering their arguments seem to easily forget -- women's rights.

Not so funny, how the minute the baby is born, these "civil rights" leaders forget all keeping that human alive. Notice there is absolutely no law anywhere in law that requires a father to give even a drop of blood to save the life of his child if that child's life is at risk. I might take their political positions more seriously if they worked that one out first.

[RM Greer]

01:51 PM on 01/23/2011

There is an old saying that seems appropriate here. "If men were the ones having children, abortion would be a sacrament".