Posted on 08/20/2012 5:17:54 AM PDT by xzins
Odious remarks by GOP Missouri Senate candidate Cong. Todd Akin about how few pregnancies result from "legitimate rape" have done more than outrage people across the country and doom Akin's bid to move up from the House.
It motivated the Romney campaign - - already trailing among women voters in recent polls - - to distance itself from Akin by assuring voters that Romney and Paul Ryan - - the "Romney-Ryan administration" - - should they win in November, would not oppose raped women's access to abortion.
"Governor Romney and Congressman (Paul) Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said.
You'd probably say that sounds reasonable and humane - - except it was just three days ago that PolitiFact devoted a lot of space to this issue and found that while Romney backed abortions in cases of incest and rape, Ryan did not.
And had been an abortion opponent throughout his entire political career - - backing an exception only when the life of the mother was at stake - - thus earning a perfect score from a leading anti-abortion organization on this basic tenet of conservative ideology and practice.
News coverage of Ryan’s first congressional race in 1998, as well as statements he made to the National Right to Life Committee, a leading anti-abortion group, show Ryan has taken a stricter anti-abortion view than Romney.
The only anti-abortion exception Ryan favors is situations where an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The National Right to Life Committee concurs, based on information the group says it collected in 1998 and 2000 from Ryan as a candidate.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
I saw an interesting post the other day on one of the many ABO/FUMR threads floating around here that stated (I can't remember exactly who said it): "We're trying to hold Romney's feet to the fire here" or something to that effect. Meaning, ostensibly, that many of these anti-Romney posts (except the anti-Mormon ones) are intended to keep reminding everyone to keep Romney as "conservative" as possible.
I prefer to make that assumption anymore about such posts. It's less stressful. At least for me. Besides, as Woodsman27 really, correctly, pointed out, there's no real defense for Romney. I personally have given up. I'm still going to vote for him, for the reason Woodsman and mkjessup have pointed out. But I'm not going to waste my time (or personal peace) trying to defend him.
By all indications, he does seem to be a Republican version of Clinton, willing to say whatever is necessary to get elected, as Woodsman said. Maybe not (I'd like to think he has had a change of heart) but there's really no defending the charge that he hasn't.
If all that doesn't resonate, an even more sobering piece of advice may be helpful (that was posted by Salvation a few days ago): Believe that others are better than you in the depths of their soul, although outwardly you may appear better than they. — St. Augustine
If we can't apply that to Romney (which I'm still willing to do personally, even if others are not) then for the sake of peace here, I'm willing to do as St. Augustine says for fellow FReepers, and assume their motivations are not to "promote Obama" or anything like that, but to do as was said previously, "To remind him (us) to stay as conservative as he promised in the primary".
It's just less stressful. Besides, everyone here, except maybe a handful, have already made their mind up. Fighting the ABO/FUMR battle is like butting your head against the wall here, at least for me. And I have enough headaches in my life without that.
Just my two cents.
And since Romney supports rape/incest abortion, then abortion has to be kept legal to permit that, therefore, justices chosen must be supporters of legal abortion...at least in cases of rape/incest (however broadly they are defined.)
I agree with your worry on this one, Bman.
Yes.
To oppose Gov. Romney because he is insufficiently pro-life because he accepts legal abortion for cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is imminently in danger is to move the goalposts.
As a Catholic who tries to follow the teachings of the Church, I don't accept direct, intentional abortion for any reason whatsoever. Not even Rep. Ryan's exception “for the life of the mother.” There is nothing in Catholic moral teaching that permits an intentional, direct abortion to save the life of a pregnant mother.
The Church does acknowledge the principal of double-effect, where the effort to treat a disease or other physical health problem may have the indirect effect of also killing the unborn child, and has taught that these may be moral choices. Thus, it is morally acceptable for the woman who accepts life-saving cancer treatment that has the secondary effect of killing her unborn child. It is generally held that the removal of an inflamed fallopian tube that results in the death of an unborn child in an ectopic pregnancy has the primary effect of removing a part of the woman that has become diseased, and has the secondary effect of causing the death of the unborn child.
But a direct, intentional abortion - where the abortion is the actual “treatment” performed for the sake of the woman - is not morally acceptable.
Thus, even Rep. Ryan's public position is a little bit of a compromise with Church teaching.
Thus, for ALL OF US CATHOLICS, even accepting an exception for the life of the mother is a compromise of our Church's teaching.
It may not be so for you, since you're not Catholic, but it is for us.
Therefore, whether the compromise stops at the life of the mother, or in the relatively-rare cases of rape and incest, for Catholics, it isn't a question of compromise/no-compromise. It's a question of to what degree we are willing to compromise.
Well over 96% of abortions are NOT about rape, incest or the life of the mother. As a Catholic, I know the Church teaches that it is acceptable to hold political positions and to vote in a way that brings about greater protection of the unborn, even if that protection is not yet complete or perfected, and as long as we publicly acknowledge the principle that all human beings, born and unborn, have a right to life that should be respected and protected in law.
Thus, for all my years as a pro-lifer, I've embraced folks as pro-life that held that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother.
Perhaps a fifth of folks believe as I do. Perhaps not quite that many. But more than half of folks believe that abortion should generally be illegal, except for the exceptions noted above.
I'm not interested in proving my theological or moral purity. I'm interested in trying to work through our democratic system to achieve a result that saves as many babies as we can save. And then, when we've secured something approaching a consensus on banning 96% of abortions, going back and fighting for the other 4% of unborn children.
MOST PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES PRO-LIFE accept abortion in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. Until we ban all the other abortions, these people are all my pro-life allies.
In fact, anyone who wants to overturn Roe, even if they accept a more liberal abortion law regime than I'd like, are pro-life allies. Until Roe is overturned or otherwise nullified. Thus, George Allen of Virginia is a pro-life ally. He's running against Tim Kaine to be the next US Senator from Virginia, and I support him, partly on pro-life grounds. His view is Roe must go!
But he also believes that the law should permit first trimester abortions.
When we get to the day that Roe is overturned, he will go from being our ally to being our adversary (and it will be incumbent upon us to try to win him over to our side).
When we get to the day that all abortions are banned except those where the mother's life is in true and immediate jeopardy, if you stand with those who wish to continue with that exception, you will become my adversary, you will become anti-life.
But until that day, we are allies. I hope even friends.
Let's not move the goalposts out of animus toward Gov. Romney. Traditionally, pro-lifers have counted among themselves all those who wish, at this time, to make illegal the 96% of abortions that are not cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother.
sitetest
He is a J E R K because he just put Clair McCaskill right back into the race where she seemed destined for defeat.
This idiot needs to go NOW.
We are soooo screwed as a country. May God have Mercy on us.
>>It’s prudent to point out that RomneyCare in MA covers abortions far more broadly than ObamaCare.<<
And if most of the libs in MA had their way, ALL abortions, including post birth abortions, would be covered. But Romney is not running for king and we have a United States that is MUCH more conservative than MA.
I’m a Yellow Life Balloon demonstrator. I look at abortion as a whole. If I can save one baby, I will.
Ever heard of the “Born Alive Act”? If Obama makes it back in, and rules but executive order unchecked, how many more babies die, pre and post born?
We are making strides in abortion, please don’t screw it up for us.
As Wag says, Girl, a criminal can’t be executed for rape, but a baby can be killed because his father raped.
That doesn’t make sense.
I believe in the requirements laid on us by the US Constitution. No one shall be executed for a capital offense without due process of law.
The baby has the right to a trial by jury to determine what crime it has committed that is worthy of capital punishment.
The other problem is that an abortion is without exception a killing. After the trial, the child can be delivered and placed for adoption at the earliest viable moment.
Delivery instead of abortion is my position. Always strive to preserve life, and especially innocent life.
Any way he answers they have a prefabricated set of stories ready to go because they've all worked so well in the past. Which will be their starting point is the only question. Will they start with a Romney/Ryan “split” over abortion, “shock” that Ryan changed is stance on abortion, “proof” Ryan as a fanatic for opposing abortion in all cases, or all of the above?
I'm expecting there to be a big deal made over Ryan possibly being deciding vote in the Senate and what a "threat to a woman's right to murder" that would be but I see no reason they won't just use all the usual talking points about "fanatic" pro-life folks on Ryan while trying to get him to stick his feet in is mouth as soon as possible..
This isn’t about anything except broadcasting Romney’s self-expressed views on abortion. As you recall, he refused to discuss them or to sign a pro-life pledge during the primary season. He simply tried to get by on a statement that he is pro-life. (Teddy Kennedy said the same, btw.)
His entire past had been pro-abortion in terms of his views or in terms of decisions made or implemented during his governorship. As recently as late 2007 he describe his own position as effectively pro-choice.
Finally, we have insight into his stance. He’s wrong, of course, but that is only partially the point.
See more at #68
“Don’t blame Akin - blame the media for doing all they can to avoid talking things that show how dramatically Obama has failed.”
This is exactly the point. His remarks were red meat for the MSM. Did he not realize this when he said it? If not he has no business being in politics.
He will pay dearly for this, the GOP will pay dearly and this smear will make its way to Romney/Ryan.
Way to go Todd.
Go ahead and vote for Obama then if you like him better.
Obama doesn’t mind leaving live babies (failed abortions) in a clothes hamper until they die, go ahead vote for Obama.
Don’t talk trash in here about God and how he will punish you for voting for Romney while helping Obama get re-elected. That’s BS.
sitetest, VERY nice post and well thought out position/approach. It’s good to know that we still have some folks with good judgement and with sound tactical and strategic thinking and planning abilities. You are now my exhibit one of folks who know how to WIN in the long run. I’m so tired of folks who are adament about pursuing “tactics” that are not only not well thought out but are actually self-defeating of the authors’ stated goals.
As time passes I’m becoming more and more convinced that Soros (and/or people of his ilk) are funding efforts to establish “sleeper” posters in the midst of THEIR enemies’ (that would be conservatives and conservative Republicans) discussion forums. Such sleepers would pose as die hard conservatives but promote actions that actually would lead to the defeat of conservative candidates and positions. Anyone who thinks this is a crazy idea is just not paying attention. And I’m not saying everyone who is acting in this manner is such a “sleeper”—some folks just plain have poor judgement and/or are true (but misguided) believers.
Anyhow, I’m glad to have you as a fellow FReeper.
“Will someone please explain to me what the logic is behind sentencing the child of a criminal to death when it is illegal to sentence the criminal to death?”
Abortion in the case of incest is wrong for sure unless the crime also includes rape, which it often does.
However, in the case of a violent rape (not of the statutory) type, I can see how the woman could view it as a continuation of the attack since part of him was still inside her. Just as the woman would be justified in using deadly force against the attacker at the time of the assault, if she viewed the pregnancy as a continuation of the attack, she would have the moral right to use deadly force against the fetus as well.
If you want abortion criminalized, like I do, the fact is that your going to have to compromise on this rape issue.
As for myself, I’m against killing under all circumstances with the exception of self defense or the defense of another (such as one’s family). I’m even against state sponsored killing...
“As you recall, he refused to discuss them or to sign a pro-life pledge during the primary season. He simply tried to get by on a statement that he is pro-life. (Teddy Kennedy said the same, btw.)”
The very premise of this thread is that Gov. Romney has stated that he accepts exceptions to a general prohibition of abortion, for cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
If that's his position, well, that's his position. Everything else is distraction and deflection.
If you think he's insincere, or perhaps even lying about his views, I understand. In 2008, I refused to believe him, too. But at the same time, I acknowledged that people can change, sometimes for the worse (Chappaquiddick Ted really did used to be pro-life - he changed for the worse), sometimes for the better (Zell Miller appears to have really changed as well, as a result painful personal experience, but this time, for the better).
Thus, even after losing as a proclaimed pro-life Republican, Gov. Romney held steady to his newly-acquired political positions, and in my view, has earned the benefit of the doubt.
If you wish to disagree on that point - that you still don't believe that he is a real pro-lifer - I understand.
But his current public position - WHICH IS OUTLINES IN YOUR VERY POST - is what is attacked in your post. I'm merely pointing out that his current public position has been deemed acceptable by most folks who call themselves pro-life for a very long time. I'm merely pointing out that you're moving the goalposts, and I'm speculating that this is perhaps because you just really can't stand Willard M. Romney. I understand. I haven't much liked him over the years, either.
But to attack his current public position on abortion - WHICH IS CLEARLY LAID OUT BY YOUR OWN THREAD, HERE - because he would provide in law exceptions for women who are pregnant by way of rape or incest is moving the goalposts.
I would be delighted if we were to effect changes in the legal regime of abortion in the United States that would prohibit all abortions except those where pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or where the mother's life was in imminent danger. This position on the part of Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan is easily sufficient to induce me to consider them pro-lifers worthy of support on this issue.
That doesn't mean that, should we succeed to this degree, I wouldn't then go back for more. But I don't mind winning 96% in the interim.
Post 68 is somewhat tangential to the larger points, although I'll note it isn't completely consistent with the actual political or juridical reality in which we find our nation.
sitetest
see post 75
Hi Sitetest,
I’ve been on FR a long time, and I’ve followed this election closely. In that time, I’ve seen no place where Romney’s current abortion views are spelled out. Romney has maintained a type of silence on the subject with the exceptions of refusing to sign a pro-life pledge and also that of simple statements that he is pro-life.
This article is the first — and it’s due to a faux pas by a senate candidate — in which the Romney camp has be obliged (perhaps against its will) to make a statement on Romney’s actual abortion stance.
We now know he is not a pure pro-lifer, but that he accepts exceptions.
This is quite newsworthy since:
1. It’s the first expression of details about his views, and every pro-lifer can now weigh this in light of recent revelations about his support of the gay agenda and of bi-partisan gun control.
2. If there are pure pro-lifers who were supporting him, due to his silence on the issue, they now have information with which to make a better informed decision.
Bookmark for later
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.