Santorum's abortion play. Why?

[marshmallow]

@YogSosoth

Nobody wakes up and decides he’s suddenly attracted to more than 1 person, and that 1 won’t do.

Wait, really? You sure? I think most men, if they could get away with it, would love to have multiple partners. Many try, too.

[Katriona]

Maybe he wants to be Randall Terry’s 2010 running mate:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/25/937234/-Randall-Terry-announces-hes-running-for-president-…-as-a-Democrat

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John_Mace

Actually, most human societies have been polygamous

Only the men have, and those are not love relationships, they are systems where women are chattel property. There’s nothing organic about ot. No on is being discriminated against if they aren’t allowed to own women as property.

[jayjay]

Told you…

[Peremensoe]

@Evil_Captor

The fact is that the conservatives have to a great extent achieved their aims with regard to abortion.
…
As the chart on this page indicates, abortions have decreased from a high of 1.4 million abortions in the US in 1990, to about 875,000, roughly the number in 1975, with a constant downward trend indicating that the number will continue to decrease.

I thought everybody wanted abortions to be “rare.”

[YogSothoth]

@marshmallow

Wait, really? You sure? I think most men, if they could get away with it, would love to have multiple partners. Many try, too.

Attrached to as a sexual orientation, meaning they cannot be attracted to one person at all.

[DocCathode]

@YogSosoth

Santorum is stupid and he’s a bigot. That’s why

As a Pennsylvanian, that’s always been my understanding.

Santorum said something stupid and hateful because that’s just who he is.

[Evil_Captor]

@spark240

I thought everybody wanted abortions to be “rare.”

Most everybody does. Liberals however still want women, in consultations with their doctors, to be the ones who decide … not some government official egged on a by a crazed priest. But I an most liberals would be thrilled if few or no women were pushed on to such extremes. That’s why we favor access to effective birth control techniques and good information about sexuality.

[Jackmannii]

@RitterSport

Maybe Santorum has some intention of running in the next election?

This is the default assumption when a politician speaks out in this manner. It’s not like it was an off-the-cuff remark; it’s part of an article for National Review.

The Roe v. Wade timing is useful for providing a framework, and reminding the Republican base (or a large segment of it) that the party continues to give lip service to their anti-abortion rights ideal.

[Peremensoe]

@Evil_Captor

But I an most liberals would be thrilled if few or no women were pushed on to such extremes.

Right. So a declining abortion rate, in itself, constitutes no evidence for an ascendant conservative anti-abortion position.

I’m not arguing that a conservative anti-abortion position isn’t ascendant–just saying that the rate isn’t evidence, and citing it may send the wrong message.

[Evil_Captor]

@spark240

Right. So a declining abortion rate, in itself, constitutes no evidence for an ascendant conservative anti-abortion position.

I’m not arguing that a conservative anti-abortion position isn’t ascendant–just saying that the rate isn’t evidence, and citing it may send the wrong message.

But a declining abortion rate is absolutely compelling evidence that fewer abortions are occurring, which is, after all, the primary objective of the anti-abortion movement, and hence, not something the people who are using the rabble want bruited about.

[Icerigger]

Check you this video with Santorum and Terry Jeffrey, Catholic theology (natural law) should be law of the land in the USA, really.

OTJ: Rick Santorum