SANTORUM TELLS ONLY PART OF A STORY

     My parents were both born in Greece in the 19th C.  There were no gynecologists, no hospitals for babies to be born in, no social security disability, and no way for people, who did physical labor all day to survive able to raise disabled children.  Today, Rick Santorum was quoted as saying the Democrats are trying to cull out disabled children with abortion by this pre-natal care and amniocentesis.
     If Santorum truly claims to want to make the government less in our lives, how can people plan to have children for whom they are unable to provide?  In past centuries, infants who were seriously deformed or disabled were euthanized at birth.  This was the only way families could continue to live their labor intensive lives.
      There are, in fact, many who do not believe a person exists before birth.  Therefore, an abortion, to them, is a kindness, not murder.  It is a kindness not to allow a fetus to turn into a human being who will live a life of nothing but hardship and pain, dependent on others for life..  Yes, there were children born 30 or so years ago without arms or legs as a result of some legal drug prescribed to the mother (thalidomide).  Many children were thus born deformed before the cause was determined and today pregnant women are not allowed to take this drug.
     Once such a child is alive, we must do all we can as a society to care for them.  We have some wonderful charities to assist, but much falls to the government (i.e.we taxpayers).
It would be unconscionable to do less once a child is sentient.   To my way of believing, that is when life starts.  It should also be noted that many disabled people never need governmental supplement of funds. The cost to taxpayers is never mentioned apart from Social Security as repayment to people who have paid from their wages as long as they have worked.  A few years ago, the politicians in Washington decided to use those funds for disability and now claim that social security cannot support itself.  It is not a subject that seems to be part of the pro-life and anti-abortion group, and it should be.

SANTORUM'S EPIPHANY DOESN'T WORK FOR ME

Rick Santorum

Every once in a while someone like Rick Santorum comes to our attention because people believe that this person is right because of his religious beliefs.  For those of us to whom no God has spoken directly, it should not come as a surprise that we believe we must be in control of our own lives and in the maxim:  "God helps those who help themselves."

Apparently, after losing a 20 week old male fetus, (I presume by natural causes) he has turned zealously against anyone having an abortion. An article on Santorum by Sheryl Gay Stolberg (click here) discusses his religious reasons for the political positions he takes.  Having lived through the Joe McCarthy era of anti-communism furor and seen the devastation of so many lives because of his fanaticism, I does not make me rush to support Santorum.  He would do away with contraception and abortion, he promises.  This from a man in a party that claims that government is too involved in our lives. 

I consider reproduction a pretty personal choice and also believe that orgasm as a stress reliever because it delivers endorphin kick ( shot from your natural body opiate) and should pose no problem in consensual sex.  While Santorum believes in marriage, there are not even compatible partners in our society  to balance the sexes.  Therefore people not wishing to have children or an incompatible marital relationship generally find that there are others of the opposite gender who feel similarly, thus the term 'friends with benefits' has been part of our vocabulary for some time.

Santorum would violate the Constitution by forcing his religious beliefs on all of those of use who are not of his religion and beliefs. If he chooses to follow the dictates of celibate men on the subject, that sex is not only for procreation, Nature wouldn't have it feel so good regardless of the intent.  A man who believes that his values should be those of everyone is a danger to our Democracy.  I sincerely hope he cannot convince a majority to deviate from our Constitution.

INNER DEBATE: WATCH THE REPUBLICANS LIE OR THE HOCKEY PLAYOFFS?

Normally I am not a sports fan.  Normally I will watch any political debate.  Why then do I draw an inner 'ho hum' when I choose hockey over the opportunity to evaluate the Republican presidential candidates.  After thinking about it for a while, I realize we are in the Internet age and all it provides media for coverage.  There is little I haven't heard about the candidates, picked apart from every bias and other perspective possible.

It seemed to me in hearing as much of the debate I could stand until the danger of retching took over, I realized that if we voted any one of them into office, we were in danger of turning back the clock socially and morally to at least fifty years.

Mitt Romney has changed his tune so many times he is hardly worth watching.  He will say whatever he 'thinks' the New Hampshire electorate wants to hear.  He did it with a smooth smile that didn't change throughout the debate..
Tim Pawlenty, one of the least charismatic candidate around.  He is against the4 new Healthcare plan and will only argue that it is "Obamneycare"  That tells the public nothing about he might best serve them in the White House.  He is with the established Republicans.
Michele Bachmann was the scariest.  She believes that life is a God creation at the point of conception until natural death.  That means no abortion or death with dignity on her watch.  She has no background for history, foreign affairs, and little else that it would take to lead this country.  She has some naive, limited ideas that support the Teaparty but comes out with a firm conviction mostly on moral issues.
Newt Gingrich has run a ridiculous campaign that has in many ways thumbed his nose at the system   Word is out that he is led by his wife.  That is enough among the Republican leaders to count him out.
Herman Cain, articulate and a good salesman but who has said some very unpopular things such as he 'wouldn't be comfortable having a Muslim in his cabinet.
Rick Santorum, also an  ultra-conservative claims to listen to everyone's issues but neglects to say that it will be with a deaf ear.. 
Lastly, Ron Paul who makes some sense when he isn't being provocative,  may not be far enough right for those who would be his base.

 All of them were in favor of having the States handle the issues they felt the government was not taking in to control such as immigration, protecting against abortions, welfare, education, budgets; in other words, they are talking about working to roll back the laws we have lived with for years that they don't like and giving the states more freedom on the basis that the government hasn't done the right job.

Most of their time was spent ranting against Obama.  I did not hear anything constructive they have to offer other than running our lives with more religion as a foundation.  Admittedly, I did not follow every moment.  I heard nothing about raising income for running the government nor getting more jobs or helping the middle class raise its standard of living.

To read BBC's take, click here.  

Despite the fact that this should be a good debate for laughs, I think sticking with the Hockey game offered a more stimulating evening.. The Bruins even won the game as added attraction.