Skip to comments.Romney: My views on abortion rights are clear
Posted on 08/31/2012 9:09:04 AM PDT by Mozilla
(CBS News) In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, Mitt Romney said his views on abortion rights are more lenient than those put forward in the Republican party platform.
"My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."
The Republican Party is gathering in Tampa, Fla., this week for its national convention, where in addition to nominating Romney for president, the party will officially adopt its national platform. Last week, the party added language to the platform calling for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with no mention of making exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.
President Obama in an interview Saturday said that if Romney were president, the Republican would not "stand in the way" if Congress attempted to strip women of their reproductive health rights. Democrats have recently stepped up their attacks against the GOP ticket on the issue of reproductive rights, in part because of the strong views held by Romney's running mate Rep. Paul Ryan, and in part because of the controversial remarks GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin made on rape and abortion.
Romney, however, told Pelley that the issue amounts to a distraction.
"Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court," he said. "The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It's been settled for some time in the courts."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
This position is indefensible. There is at least a logic behind being pro-abortion. But, this position is mere pandering. No pro-lifer should vote for him.
"Health and life of the mother"...very tricksy! Threw that word "health" in there...Almost sounds good.
The voters don’t care. Keep hitting about the economy/jobs/gas prices.
For some reason everyone here on FR seems to think that this is a new position. This is the same pro-life position that’s been held by Republican candidates since Ronald Reagan.
You say the position is indefensible, and I say it is not. It’s the correct and moral position.
Which views would those be Willard. The ones where your pro choice with state funding for abortions?
Romney wouldn't be the first barbarian put into office, nor will he be the last, but you can't claim to be civilized and be in favor of the purposeful killing of an infant.
Being for abortion because you don’t like who fathered the child, is the position of all RINOs. It was also the position of RINO George W. Bush and of course RINO Juan McAmnesty.
The “Life of the mother” or the baby never happens in this day and age. A big red herring.
Really? So when a politician is in favor of abortion being legal for the health of the mother, that's OK? News to me. Seems that's the DemocRATs position. I guess if amniocentesis reveals that a developing fetus is carrying Down's syndrome, and for the mother to bring that child to term would damage her mental health, then abortion is A-OK. That's the nice big loophole you leave for yourself when you use the weasel-word "health of the mother".
No it’s not. “Health of the mother” is different from “life of the mother” because “health of the mother” is used by pro-aborts to justify any abortion on mental health grounds.
Life of the mother is commonsense. No pro-lifer has a problem with that. (Though we would specify that while saving the mother’s life you also try to save the child if it’s possible.)
You are correct that the rape and incest exception has been embraced by a lot of “pro-life” Republicans. But rejected by others. The platform leaves it out. I reject it because it is, of course, inconsistent with the principle that the baby is innocent. Including or not including the incest/rape exception is not new.
But Romney’s use of “health of the mother” is new and it is troubling. But not surprising.
He isn’t “in favor of the purposeful killing of an infant.”
He’s “in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.”
It is the correct and moral position.
If you are in favor of forcing by law a mother to bear the child of her rapist without her consent, then you are no better than her rapist.
Stop playing word games. No sane person is in favor of the purposeful killing of infants.
Only Obama and his ilk are in favor of that.
Exactly. Dr. Ron Paul says he has never seen such a case in all his years of practice.
Romney's the one playing word games, by using the weasel-word "health of the mother." But no one should be surprised by this, since Romney has been pro-abort since he ran against Teddy.
“It is the correct and moral position”
So you think God would kill the child because of it’s father?
“Health and life of the mother” is an Orwellian phrase that has proved to mean any and all abortions that are convenient. All a mother has to do is to say that having a baby would make her feel bad, and, boom, it’s aborted for the sake of her mental health.
Of course, once Romney gets in, he will drop the pretences, just like he did in Massachusetts as governor, and he will support taxpayer funded abortions for any reason whatever.
No, there’s nothing “moral” about killing innocent babies, Mitt.
I wish that were true. However, over the years, I've seen contrary statements, some right here on FR. I'll find the thread, although it might take me a while to search my 11 years of history, but one that sticks out in my mind is the FReeper who said somthing to the effect of, "Pregnant women shouldn't be allowed chemotherapy. She's had her chance at life, so it's the baby's turn."
So, you're saying that considering the termination of the life of the unborn as murder and finding the "well the courts say it's legal" argument repugnant and lacking is the incorrect position?
Let me clarify on why the courts-argument is wrong: The Supreme Court manufactured its ruling out of whole cloth, invalidating [as 'unconstitutional'] all State laws which were in place to protect the life of that state's citizens. (Indeed, the 14th Amendment, Sec I, virtually requires states to protect its citizens.) Further, the 5th Amendment prohibits the deprivation of Life without due process, but by invalidating the States's own protections of the unborn the USSC was condemning the innocent to certain death, when that court cannot legitimately alter the Constitution.
If the USSC could alter the Constitution, then they are not bound by it, but sovereign over it. Furthermore [if what they say is constitutional is constitutional], as decisions are by majority, any dissent is by definition contrary to constitutional law and therefore any action based upon it is sedition.
IOW, not only is the decision itself invalid, but the system which could make such decision is itself so flawed and inconsistent as to be utterly self-destructive.
It’s an interview and the video of the interview is on the site.
So from the postings of a few on the fringe you will extrapolate to the general pro-life Freeper population? Do you understand the flaw in that logic?
Yea I understand. I get that Obama has to go, but this is what Romney said and is worthy of bringing up. Tea party and social conservatives should know what they are getting.
So spare us the faux "conservative" posturing. When you have to lie about your real agenda in the vain hope it gives your posting a fake gloss of intellectual credibility, you have all ready lost the debate.
You guys are full of it. My wife had a patient not more than a few years ago at most who was advised not by the obstetrical practice, but her cardiologist to not continue her pregnancy because of an existing heart condition. Patient ignored the advice and sure enough coded on the telemetry unit at 28 weeks. Her heart was just not strong enough to deal with the 150% blood volume associated with pregnancy. They still had fetal heart tones when an ECS was attempted, but that was futile as well. Both mother and baby were lost.
To be fair, it might be better for finding the average* feeling, rather than the general** feeling.
* Statistic's 'mean'.
** Statistic's 'mode'.
At no point did I ascribe the position of those who I would label as the fringe to most FReepers. I was merely pointing out that they do exist, which was contrary to the black and white declarative, “No pro-lifer....” statement I was responding to.
And how does that make us "full of it"? The abortion in this case would have been for the life of the mother. Pretty much every reputable pro-life group would not have been against terminating that pregnancy. Sorry, try again.
the Life of the mother or the baby never happens in this day and age. A big red herring. Exactly. Dr. Ron Paul says he has never seen such a case in all his years of practice.
See the above statement? See the key words and phrases? Never happens
No leeway there. It obviously does happen, hence my example.
This is twice now where you've taken exception to me correcting absolutist nonsense. When someone declares without a equivocation that no one ever, or something never...it had better be cut and dried, or the entire argument is lost. Obviously, in both cases where you've responded to my replies, sometimes people do, and sometimes it does happen. That would preclude the evers and nevers. Nuff said.
Maybe the patient couldn't stand the idea of abortion, thinking it to be murder. If that is the case then I cannot fault the decision to "ignore the advice" of the doctor.
Fine. Then please refrain from using the phrase "you guys".
Absolutely. I’m in no way judging the patient. My own wife took great risks with our youngest, after developing a DVT in her previous pregnancy and throwing an embulis (sp?) to her lung, almost dying. It was daily shots of low molecular weight heparin for months, and a few scary moments.
I’m suspecting that it is because of the high degree of emotion surrounding the subject matter, but there seems to be a complete inability for anyone to keep my posts in context today.
I relayed that incident solely to refute the nonsensical, untrue statement that, “The life of the mother or the baby NEVER (emphasis mine) happens in this day and age.” A statement which has nothing to do with the courage of the mother, so for the life of me, I cannot understand how my reply was taken as such either.
Not all absolutism is nonsense though. The USSC Roe v. Wade decision was terrible, absolutely, on both the legal and moral fronts.
That’s fair. For clarity, “you guys” referenced NKP_Vet and Forgotten Amendments. It was not meant to be inclusive of anyone else.
Romney is a judicial supremacist, pro-choice democrat.
He’s not pro-life in any way that matters at all.
No, I don’t. What I think is that God isn’t going to do anything at all.
But the child’s mother must be asked if she wishes to proceed.
She can say yes, and she can say no. It really depends on the person. And quite frankly, it really isn’t anybody else’s business what she chooses.
When and if you get impregnated by a rapist, then you decide how best to proceed. Until then, I suggest you mind your own business.
If the woman was aware of her serious health problems, she had the opportunity to PREVENT pregnancy. A child conceived by rape or incest is a victim also. Why is it OK to kill the victim but not have the death penalty for the perpetrator?
That’s between the woman, God and her doctor, and it’s not between the woman, God and her doctor and you.
And I say you are full of it. This is exactly the same position as the Pro-Abortion democrats. Safe, rare and legal.
The mother's health scam is used as an excuse to abort any child at any time.
I guess he is insane then?
Hes in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.
I find this a little confusing, don't you?
That's a damned lie.
Sorry but that is the position of the political elite in both parties. Progressives must protect Gaia from the infestation of the intellectually inferior workers, and useless food gobblers.
It’s off the subject, but I’ll explain why rape should not be a capital crime.
Do you know why so many of the Little Lindbergh laws were repealed? I do. It’s also the best common sense reason to not make rape a capital crime. When a crime carries the ultimate penalty, there is no longer any reason whatsoever to not escalate that crime to the ultimate crime.
Several states overreacted and knee-jerked statutes into effect post Lindbergh that made kidnapping a capital crime. Kidnapping, already rare, remained at about the same level of occurance, but the number of kidnappings that escalated to murder spiked. The laws were universally repealed, and the kidnappings that escalated to murder declined to their former levels.
You’d see the same thing with rape. Make it a capital crime, and you’ll see more murder rapes. There is no longer a reason to let the victim live, and every reason not to.
In this case the mother chose to put her life at risk attempting to protect her child.
We have fighting men and women make similar choices all the time. We call them heroes.
Not comfortable outside your echo chamber, eh Tom?
So kill the child and let the rapist live? Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany.
“The welfare of mother and child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases,” says Dr. David Reardon, a full-time researcher into the impact of abortion on women, in a valuable article, Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths . Both the mother and child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.”
From his own research and the work of others, Reardon reports some results most people would find surprising:
For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Makhorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion. This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.
My point is that killing the victim of a crime is wrong. If anyone should die it should not be the victim. Unfortunately society has decided that being conceived by rape or incest makes one deserving of the death penalty.
Kill the rapist if you want, I don’t care.
As far as what happens to the child, that is for the mother and victim of the rapist to determine, not you.
But forcing the mother to bear the child of her rapist even if it against her consent?
Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany.