Can Santorum Recover from His Latest Gaffe?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nismaratwork
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Rick Santorum's controversial comments regarding abortion and race, particularly his remarks about President Obama. Participants explore the implications of these comments on Santorum's political viability and fundraising potential, as well as the broader societal reactions to such statements. The conversation touches on themes of civil rights, political optics, and the intersection of personal beliefs with public discourse.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Santorum's comments may not be political suicide, suggesting that the content of his remarks is overshadowed by political optics.
  • Others express confusion about the specific comments being referenced, indicating a lack of clarity in the discussion.
  • A participant highlights the absurdity of comparing the denial of personhood based on race to the timing of when rights are granted, labeling it a non sequitur.
  • Some participants acknowledge the polarizing nature of Santorum's comments and speculate on their impact on his fundraising efforts.
  • There is a discussion about the relative nature of political rhetoric, with some arguing that Santorum's comments are less extreme compared to other political statements.
  • Participants reflect on the broader implications of the abortion debate, noting the contradictions in how different political ideologies approach the issue.
  • Some express a belief that a fetus is a person, while also arguing against the forced servitude of a mother, highlighting the complexity of the abortion issue.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of Santorum's comments, with multiple competing views remaining regarding their political impact and the appropriateness of the comparisons made. The discussion remains unresolved on several points, particularly regarding the interpretation of Santorum's remarks and their broader societal implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of understanding and interpretation of Santorum's comments, indicating a reliance on media portrayals and personal beliefs. There are also references to the current political climate, which may influence perceptions of the statements made.

  • #61
Al68 said:
Well, thanks, but I don't think it's that rare at all. I think most pro-choice people dislike, if not detest, abortion.

When are your earliest memories? I'm not against your stance, mind you. Just for it. My earliest memories are before I was born. Most people decry that. They don't get that, but that doesn't change the fact that I recall, quite well, being born. Yeah, I know, icky, yuck! Actually, somewhat constricting (what part of it should I choose to forget? Lol! In hindsight, it's somewhat interesting, from a medical point of view) Sigh. There it is, however, and my point is somewhat along yours, in that I too believe we should all have the right to life, regardless of from whatever age our life begins.

For those pshawing in disbelief, years ago I sketched the diaper room from which we moved, less than three months after I was born, along with my doctor's face, so...

(shrugs). Life is. Most won't get this, but it doesn't really matter. They are my memories, and the fact that they match pics taken around the time I was born are good enough for me
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
mugaliens said:
When are your earliest memories? I'm not against your stance, mind you. Just for it. My earliest memories are before I was born. Most people decry that. They don't get that, but that doesn't change the fact that I recall, quite well, being born. Yeah, I know, icky, yuck! Actually, somewhat constricting (what part of it should I choose to forget? Lol! In hindsight, it's somewhat interesting, from a medical point of view) Sigh. There it is, however, and my point is somewhat along yours, in that I too believe we should all have the right to life, regardless of from whatever age our life begins.

For those pshawing in disbelief, years ago I sketched the diaper room from which we moved, less than three months after I was born, along with my doctor's face, so...

(shrugs). Life is. Most won't get this, but it doesn't really matter. They are my memories, and the fact that they match pics taken around the time I was born are good enough for me

That's unusual, but infantile amnesia is NOT absolute, nor are concepts of where memories begin, and where the details we add from hearing recollections begins to mix with real memories. If your memory is highly detailed, then you can rest assured that it has at least been modified greatly over time. If it's mostly a blind memory of sense impressions... then yeah, it could be real.

If you saw a face... well... research DOES seem to indicate that babies can recognize basic facial features... probably. They definitely focus on the face, but how much they can see? Certainly on the way out of the birthing canal, you're in no position, figuratively or literally, to be observing your doctor. In fact, as a baby it would just be pitch black until... uh... the end... and I mean your head is OUT. Now, you could be mixing memories of the SAME event, and grafting details together centered around the vivid memory of actually being born.

So... who knows? The point is that you believe, at least partly based on a strong personal experience, that at least as of 9 months a child is thinking, observing, and forming memories. Does it matter that it's based on what may or may not be a memory of an actual event? The point is that you're sufficiently moved by the notion that you're willing to generalize your experience to a fetus that is at least 3 months less developed.

I guess the big question there would be: Rick Santorum is dialing that reasoning back to the a blastocyst... which does NOT think or feel. If they do, then we are all MONSTERS for what we do to the microbiological world... and so be it. To me, positing that blastocysts, embryos, and the early-term fetus are all equal or even similar... isn't reasonable. That to me, requires religion, or a belief in something like "primary perception"... or so much emotional 'stuff', that the issue isn't clear.

The irony, is that Al68 (conservative), myself (I don't know, but more liberal), you (truly independent AFAIK) probably all agree that given the evolution of medicine... late-term abortions present a troubling dilemma. The standard, "That is viable," has changed since the laws were made! The irony then, is that the issue has become so polarized, and a group that is "anti-abortion" within the larger "pro-life" group has become VERY influential. Now, the battle is just to kill the relevant statutes, and on the other side, to leave them be so they're not lost.

We need a way to re-work our laws to account for evolving medicine without re-opening the whole debate each time. That's my belief at least, because we're never going to get ANYWHERE the way we're going. (not we in this forum, "we the people")
 
  • #63
The intellectual refinement in this thread has boosted my memory; suddenly I clearly remember how I as a little sperm was swimming for my life. It was messy and a lot of malevolent competitors out there. This I remember very clear.

But I made it to base as The Winner, and scored hole in one.

Then something strange happened... I had one of these very rare "Out-of-fetus experiences" and I was looking at myself; and I still have a very clear memory of that picture:

[PLAIN]http://www.rimdalens.se/Grafik/Bilder/foster%2030%20dagar.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #64
This thread is about santorum, it has gone astray.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News Can Romney regain credibility after his Cairo/Libya Embassy blunder?
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K