During last year's Republican National convention, Rick was asked on NPR if he opposes fertility clinics that do in vitro fertilization because at these clinics there are inevitably embryos that are discarded -- and if he's opposed to in vitro fertilization if it does end up with any embryos that will not be implanted in a woman's womb and will not become a child.
His answer: "Yes."
Listen to the audio from the NPR segment.
Thanks to Atrios, we saw the San Diego Union-Tribune has reported that a federal lawsuit was filed on Friday by the National Association for the Advancement of Preborn Children against the administrators of California's stem cell institute. The NAA-PC is seeking to stop the institute's work on the grounds that the civil rights of frozen embryos are violated by stem cell research.
According to the Union-Tribune:
The suit was filed on behalf of Mary Scott Doe, a fictitious embryo produced by in vitro fertilization and then frozen and put into storage. Some of these embryos, which people have decided not to use in attempts to have children, have been donated for use in stem cell research, which involves destroying them.
The lawsuit claims the embryo is a person who should be given equal protection under the Constitution, and her destruction violates her right to freedom from slavery.
What do you think are the chances that Rick would support the same type of lawsuit being brought against in vitro clinics?
Tags:
santorum,
rick santorum
of course not - caves too much resemble all-too-female and therefore unsanctified orifices. mr. santorum, like all self-respecting mystics, lives on top of a sacred pole. i'm unsure as to whether that pole is planted in his orifice, however.
If this case ever makes it into court it will be interesting to see if the California Supreme Court, assuming it eventually hears the case, will clarify its confusing ruling on fetus rights.
That was an interesting aspect of the Scott Peterson trial, that the state could meet its "special circumstances" burden to demand the death penalty by including a separate count for the fetus as a double murder. It sure is something I'd like to see the Supreme Court address, particularly since the person charged was the father.
That is a case about privacy but it was a law that was struck down in conn. that did not allow MARRIED COUPLES to use birth control.
I fear worse is to come.
Check out these two posts for more information on that:
Rick Says Birth Control Harms Women
[url=http://santorumexposed.com/serendipity/archives/42-Yes-Atrios,-Rick-said-that.-Heres-the-video.html]Rick Says Griswold was wrongly decided[/url]
Now please put forward a change to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment that prohibits second marriages. After all, there's a lot more biblical prohibition of divorce than against gay marriage.
I can see the motto now: "One man, one woman, ONE TIME"
Do it Ricky. God will love you if you do.
People should be able to remarry, but only after convincing a panel of celebate men that they never should have been married in the first place, and that their marriage was really a sham from the beginning, even if they did appear to love each other and even if they did have a few kids.
Sounds fair, doesn't it?
Ummm ... if so, then wouldn't it be necessary to investigate miscarriages as possible homocides? Would a woman who miscarries possibly be sued for wrongful death?
If I were the lawyer for the other side, I would raise these questions about what kind of precident this suit would set. And if I were the judge, this would be the first thing on my mind in ruling the suit be thrown out of court.
In a more demotic use of language ... calling fetuses people? you DON'T want to go there ...
Of course, that would be so wrong given the harm done to the sued woman. But sometimes, don't you think, our liberal principles get in our way. You know if the shoe were on the other foot, the radical right would have no qualms about pulling such a stunt.
Aren't they putting the chicken before the egg here? Who decides whether a fertilized egg is viable? Viability is one step of many to achieving that hugely presumptuous Preborn status, and that's not even counting the status, wishes and rights of the human being who has dominion over the reproductive system that hold the fallopian tubes that makes the egg.
A woman in good health may expel any number of fertilized eggs that her own body does not regard as viable.
Santorum and RW foetus-fetishists don't have a say in the matter.
Wait a minute. Why is the embryo "her" and not "him"? Who chose the sex of an embryo without a sperm being present? Maybe then they should outlaw periods, since that involves flushing embryos?
#9 whenwego on Aug 9 2005, 10:35
An embryo is a fertilized egg--the sperm is not only involved, but committed. During a woman's period, her body flushes UNfertilized eggs, not embryos.
Of course, as someone else pointed out, a woman's body may also flush fertilized eggs that it regards as non-viable, but that's not what's normally happening during her monthly cycle.
Well, they're clearly not old enough to drink so I guess that rules out inviting them to my next cocktail party. I'm going down to the local in vitro clinic to see if any embryos would like to come over for coffee and dessert.
Maybe I can take them to a few museums, though I suppose Rick wouldn't want me taking them to any natural history or science museum where they might learn something about Darwin and his theory that has all those "holes."
Rick needs to get a handle on this problem immediately. Where's the federal legislation to get webcams in our homes/bedrooms so the Republicans, I mean Feds, can monitor these atrocities?
According to Rick, you should only have sex if you are married, and you should only have sex with your spouse fully expecting a child to be the result. You must totally ignore the fact that the act feels good or improves your relationship. It is not supposed to be fun, it is supposed to create life.
Personnaly, I wish Rick's dad had used a condom.
You should also only be having sex/making babies with your spouse.
This includes masturbation, sodomy (heterosexual or homosexual), "pulling out", artifical contraception, and sterilization. This also includes IVF, surrogacy, and sperm donation.
Santorum has a right to believe what he believes. However, to try to make Government policy out of this is both stupid and dangerous.
Go to http://allspinzone.com/blog to find out more about this fake interest group with the fake plaintiff.
Virginia has already tried to implement legistlation that goes down this road. According to a bill proposed by Delegate John Cosgrove a woman must report to the police within 12 hours of having a miscarriage or face 12 months in jail and a $2500 fine.
Have Miscarriage, Go to Jail?
Fortunately as of June 22, 2005, the law did not pass.
But it's disgusting (and scary) to think that people are even THINKING along these lines.
When newspapers actually mention Chuck Pennachio they often simply refer to him as the pro-choice candidate; but Chuck is also pro stem cell research, pro-gun control, and the anti- Iraq war candidate.