This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← 10 things you didn't know about Rick Santorum...

10 things you didn't know about Rick Santorum... - Comments

keith's Avatar Comment 1 by keith

Yes, scary, but only slightly more scary than slippery Mehdi Hasan, author of this piece.

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:25:16 UTC | #909011

rorymeister's Avatar Comment 2 by rorymeister

Iowa scares the bejeebus out of me

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:43:05 UTC | #909018

Reckless Monkey's Avatar Comment 3 by Reckless Monkey

Most of this is worrying but why would anyone think that what he did to come to terms with his grief over his dead child is anyone else's business but his and his family. In past times this sort of thing was quite normal. Many families would dress up corpses of loved ones and photograph them with the family. Carrying a child for 9 months and then loosing it has got to be quite devastating.

I actually think this seems the most sane thing I've read about him. Are people suggesting he goes around digging up relatives every time he wants to spend some time with them. It's not as if he had the child there for weeks to putrefy, he didn't eat it or anything. I can't imagine the pain of loosing a child even one only born for a few moments, there is a lot of emotional investment into a child during pregnancy, and loosing one shortly after childbirth would be devastating. Why the media would bring this up as something that should be used to judge his suitability for office is the only offensive thing here.

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 04:26:26 UTC | #909055

The Notorious B.I.N.G's Avatar Comment 4 by The Notorious B.I.N.G

Comment 1 by keith :

Yes, scary, but only slightly more scary than slippery Mehdi Hasan, author of this piece.

I couldn't agree more. The unfailingly irritating Mehdi Hasan is self-obsessed to a quite extraordinarily insufferable degree. His leftism is of the totally unthinking and unreflective kind; that is, one knows what he thinks and how he feels about an event before it has even happened. This man is no friend of the left.

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:06:23 UTC | #909121

LucindaE's Avatar Comment 5 by LucindaE

Santorum, an evangelical Catholic, supports a blanket ban on abortion without exceptions for rape or incest.

Not to mention ectopic pregnancy, which would kill both foetus and mother. Except, of course, when his own wife suffered one.

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:37:37 UTC | #909128

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 6 by irate_atheist

What's worse is that people vote for this wingnut.

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:55:50 UTC | #909139

RW Millam's Avatar Comment 7 by RW Millam

I cannot stomach the thought of "President" Santorum. He's a homophobic, religious bigot.

But in fairness, he did not say that homosexuality was like "man-on-dog." As I read it, he implied that (as horrible and disgusting as he obviously believes it to be) homosexuality did not deserve the same kind of criticism merited by paedophelia or beastiality. The quote from the USA Today article is

"That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."

Please -- this guy is already scary enough. There is no need to put even scarier words in his mouth. And I really hate having to come to the defense of assholes like this.

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:28:33 UTC | #909176

ChuanZiZen's Avatar Comment 8 by ChuanZiZen

If a couple living in a shanty in the middle of Kentucky brought home the CORPSE of an infant, it would make for the genesis of a slasher movie - even if the context were Xtian.

In the words of Bill Maher (on many occasions) "bat sh** crazy"!!!

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:51:00 UTC | #909184

arntfu's Avatar Comment 9 by arntfu

Making a political point of how he and his family dealt with their grief at losing a child, is just unethical. I don´t care who or what Rick Santorum is, but however weird his grief handling seems to anyone else, it´s none of our business.

Honestly, the way I read this list there was nine things that made him a dick and one that made him human like the rest of us.

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:58:32 UTC | #909325

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 10 by Red Dog

Comment 9 by arntfu :

Making a political point of how he and his family dealt with their grief at losing a child, is just unethical. I don´t care who or what Rick Santorum is, but however weird his grief handling seems to anyone else, it´s none of our business.

Honestly, the way I read this list there was nine things that made him a dick and one that made him human like the rest of us.

That reminds me of the complaints by Sarah Palin that people are dragging her family into politics as she used them as stage props in her campaign stops. Why do you think the world knows about this in the first place? its because Santorum chose to publicize this as part of his devotion to dictating to women the appropriate way for them to have sex (aka his reverence for life).

I agree that the US is far too focused on private lives of their political figures. However, there are limits, there are some things that are just so plain weird that they deserve notice and taking home a baby corpse to present to the family certainly qualifies in my opinion.

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:39:07 UTC | #909337

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 11 by Red Dog

Comment 3 by Reckless Monkey :

Most of this is worrying but why would anyone think that what he did to come to terms with his grief over his dead child is anyone else's business but his and his family. In past times this sort of thing was quite normal. Many families would dress up corpses of loved ones and photograph them with the family. Carrying a child for 9 months and then loosing it has got to be quite devastating.

Really? It happened to my mom twice back in the "good old days" (the 1960's) and (thank Godless) in neither case did she bring the baby corpse home for me to look at. I would be interested to know how you justify the statement that this kind of practice used to be common. However, even if you can, a lot of things used to be common: wife beating, slavery, racial prejudice,... that doesn't mean they were right or that people who still practice them deserve to be elected to office.

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:45:45 UTC | #909341

mmurray's Avatar Comment 12 by mmurray

Comment 11 by Red Dog :

Comment 3 by Reckless Monkey :

Most of this is worrying but why would anyone think that what he did to come to terms with his grief over his dead child is anyone else's business but his and his family. In past times this sort of thing was quite normal. Many families would dress up corpses of loved ones and photograph them with the family. Carrying a child for 9 months and then loosing it has got to be quite devastating.

Really? It happened to my mom twice back in the "good old days" (the 1960's) and (thank Godless) in neither case did she bring the baby corpse home for me to look at. I would be interested to know how you justify the statement that this kind of practice used to be common. However, even if you can, a lot of things used to be common: wife beating, slavery, racial prejudice,... that doesn't mean they were right or that people who still practice them deserve to be elected to office.

I think this kind of thing was not uncommon in Victorian times. I think around the time it happened to your mother the accepted approach was to remove the still born baby without the mother seeing it and encourage her to go home and have another one. More recently it has become more common to allow parents to see the dead baby, photograph it etc. It helps the grieving process. Whether I would extend that to the whole family I don't know. Luckily I never had to decide. I certainly wouldn't object to anyone else doing it unless someone can demonstrate harm to the siblings.

Michael

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:09:07 UTC | #909350

mmurray's Avatar Comment 13 by mmurray

Post mortem photography in Victorian times. This is slightly different as it is photographing the child or adult after death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-mortem_photography

These photographs served less as a reminder of mortality than as a keepsake to remember the deceased. This was especially common with infants and young children; Victorian era childhood mortality rates were extremely high, and a post-mortem photograph might have been the only image of the child the family ever had. The later invention of the carte de visite, which allowed multiple prints to be made from a single negative, meant that copies of the image could be mailed to relatives.

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:43:36 UTC | #909366

Quine's Avatar Comment 14 by Quine

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:29:00 UTC | #921691