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 ...
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 fine.
That’s between the woman, God and her doctor, and it’s not between the woman, God and her doctor and you.
IBTZ
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?
He’s “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?
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.