Skip to comments.Romney says Ryan won't oppose abortion in rape cases (Romney supports both rape & incest abortion)
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 Ryans 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 have a daughter, and if she ever came to me and said ‘dad, I was raped and now I’m pregnant’, we’re going to have a discussion.
Part of this, because I’m not an idiot, is to going to be to try to determine if she really was raped or if this was really consentual, including we need to get an exam and go after the guy criminally. Then we will have a talk about what a great thing it would be if she could stand to have the baby and keep it or give it up for adoption.
However, if at the end of this discussion, she says “Dad, I just can’t do it”, then I’ll tell you what I’m NOT going to do. I’m not going to say “well, thats too bad, I dont care if you dont want this, or what your dreams were for life, and school and sports or whatever...you have to have this baby, and the only choice you get in this whole thing is whether you give it up for adoption or keep it and hope it doesn’t grow up to look like the rapist”. And woe be to the purist that tries to interfere and force her to do anything.
And because I wont do that to my daughter, I wont demand it of anyone else’s daughter either. If a woman is able to have the baby and give it up or keep it and raise it, I applaud you, and this tight fisted conservative would gladly give what I can to help you along the way. But I’ll be damned if I ever put myself in a position where I literally or via policy where I looked some young girl in the face and said ‘so sorry that you were horribly violated, but you’re having a baby whether you like it or not’.
I dont feel this in any way prevents me from being pro life...and I’ll go a step further, I dont have the least bit of fear of the prospect of standing before God and explaining my decision. But if it prevents me from being in someones category of what is “officially pro life” then well, I care about that about as much as I care about what American Idol is going to do without J-Lo.
He was trying to make a difficult point to get across to begin with, then blew up the whole issue claiming that women who REALLY get raped shutdown their biological systems so they don't get pregnant?? (and here he is arguing against abortion and contraceptives yet??)
That is just downright stupid, and politically suicidal.
I remember when Sharon Angle said on camera said that her NV (desired) voters were unemployed because they were soft.
Might as well skip election day and save money with candidates like them.
You talk about forcing your daughter to do something, as if not getting an abortion and murdering that baby is the default, inactive choice, and letting the child naturally develop and be born is a forced, active choice. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Absent any special action, that child will be born; it takes an active intervention to kill it and stop that from happening.
For the life of me, I can’t understand how you would think that approving of your daughter committing a murder would somehow help her get over the trauma of rape either. I can see how people might think, in an emotional state, that it would help, but that’s not going to be the case in reality. Making the child “disappear” won’t erase the memory or trauma of the rape, it will just burden the rape victim with a guilty conscience for the rest of her life.
this blogger is full of it!
James Rowen’s blog is part of our Purple Wisconsin project. Rowen is a political writer and environmental consultant who has had careers in journalism and public service.
That's certainly what the "establishment" Republicans want you to do. They sure don't want them uppity tea party candidates getting elected.
Barack Obama supports letting babies that survive botched abortions to die gasping for air for hours and hours without any aid or assistance as he is unwilling to concede that is a living breathing human being.
But don’t let your hate of Romney get in the way of supporting a genuine antiChrist demon.
You’re right. It is a good thing and I’m sure Team Obama appreciates the distractions from the economy and record high gas prices and Obamacare and...
That’s a very interesting post thank you for posting it and including me in the ping.
“Kill the child and let the rapist live? If you’re going to kill someone over rape, doesn’t it make more sense to kill the rapist and let the child live”?
~ Pat Buchanan
Kiessling gives a three-step process in terms of how candidates should answer the question:
1. The Supreme Court has said that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for rapists and that rapists dont deserve the death penalty. I dont think the innocent child conceived in rape deserves the death penalty for the crimes of her father. It seems to me that is cruel and unusual punishment.
2. Rape victims are four times more likely to die within the next year after the abortion, with a higher rate of suicide, murder, drug overdose, etc.. As someone who really cares about rape victims, I want to protect them from the rapist, and from the abortion, and not the baby. A baby is not the worst thing that could ever happen to a rape victim an abortion is. We need to educate the American public on the truth in this matter and not make public policy based on myth and misinformation.
3. Rape victims choose abortion at half the rate of the average unplanned pregnancy, which is over 50%. Only 15-25% of rape victims choose abortion, depending on the study. The majority of rape victims choose to raise her child not the rapists baby HER child.
“The President’s “view” on abortion have no EFFECT on the number of abortions.”
“However, Obama’s views on infanticide and his support of NOW and Planned Parenthood...”
Huh?!? You just said it doesn’t matter what the President believes about abortion, since there is no correlation. So, by your logic, it doesn’t matter what Obama believes about abortion, or what he supports.
Ok so A) they oppose abortion because it is the taking of innocent human life, but B) it’s ok to take innocent human life depending on the manner of conception.
Real consistency there.
Well, first, I’d say that its a pretty callused statement to say that a woman who, when raped and who says I dont want to have a baby that happened as the result of rape “well, fine, but you are a murderer”. Really? A murderer? I also dont know that you can state for certain what will happen to the girl in all cases, such as “she will have a guilty conscience for the rest of her life”. You said letting the baby develop is a default inactive choice. But you are ignoring that what got her in that position was ALSO an inactive choice. So saying sorry, but because of an inactive choice some monster made, you have to live with it because of another inactive choice that we who know better are going to make for you, just doesn’t sit right with me.
Second, its really easy to argue from the standpoint that you seem to want to argue from, the position of black and white, all about the baby. But you dont seem to want to touch the issue of what about her and the practical details of her life and her rights. Thats the part where this stance always falls down to me. What if she’s a senior in high school,and now her prom (if she got to attend at all) pictures now have to show her pregnant for all of her life. What if the baby ends up looking exactly like the rapist, so she has to look at that for the rest of her life? What if she’s on the verge of an athletic scholorship and this will effectively end that option for her. Sorry honey, but thats how its got to be? I dont think so. Not with my child.
Its easy to take the moral position that you are taking, of saying its a baby and that trumps all else, but I ask you, are you really ready to sit down and look in a rape victims face and say, Like it or not, you WILL have this baby, by law, not because you chose to engage in the reproductive act, but because our law is so rigid you have no other option? I’m saying I can’t do that. If someone chose to have sex, then yes, I could. Encourage the rape victim to have the baby and help with everything I possibly can, absolutely. Force her to have the baby as if she’s someone who’s opinion doesn’t matter at all? Certainly not.
The Presidents view on abortion have no EFFECT on the number of abortions.
However, Obamas views on infanticide and his support of NOW and Planned Parenthood... (You love those ellipsis points don't you!)
Huh?!? You just said it doesnt matter what the President believes about abortion, since there is no correlation.
Let's post what you selectively omitted!
The President's "view" on abortion have no EFFECT on the number of abortions.
However, Obama's views on infanticide and his support of NOW and Planned Parenthood pretty much guarantee that public funding will find its way from my pocket into abortions via Obamacare.
1. Romney's verbal opposition to abortion doesn't reduce the number of abortions, in fact, it appears to be a negative correlation.
2. Obama's support of NOW and Planned Parenthood and votes to LEGALIZE infanticide -DO- make it more likely that ALL OF US will have to pay for some portion of abortions under Obamacare.
Dont really know who Kiessling is, but see, you are terming this in how politicians feel and should answer questions. I dont really care about that. I’m not trying to make a political point here....I’m just saying that there is no way, in that case, that I would ever force a girl one way or the other. I’d encourage her to adopt or raise the child, but I can’t say you have to. She didn’t make any choice that I can point to and say “you have an obligation”. And frankly, I’d like to hear how that conversation would go down with a girl that you cared about? You’ve given all the arguments, all the talking points, all the effort you can give but she says “sorry, I just dont think I can handle having this baby”. What do you say to her? Not what did Pat Buchannan say, or what does Kiessling say that candidates say, what do you say when you look her in the face to tell her that like it or not, she’s going to give birth? How do you tell a person something like that? Its beyond me.
“Let’s post what you selectively omitted!”
Yes, what did I “omit”? An apples to orange comparison, which contributes nothing to the discussion. That’s why I omitted it, because it’s nothing more than a distraction.
If Romney’s views have no correlation with the number of abortions, then Obama’s views have no correlation either. That is the apples to apples comparison. Throwing in the junk about Obama supporting PP and funding for abortions is an entirely different argument. If you want to muddy the waters with that, fine, but I don’t have to take the bait.
Oh. You need arguments expressed more simply.
The President’s opinions on Apples have no effect on the total number of apples in the US.
Obama likes apples, and he also thinks I should help pay to buy apples for his constituents.
Oh goody. Now it’s all apples and you can comprehend the point.
Babies are being murdered, and anything you do to get Obama reelected won’t affect the number of murders much, but it may set us all up to pay for some of the murder.
“Oh. You need arguments expressed more simply.”
Not simply, just consistently, and without appeal to logical fallacies, please.
Name the fallacy.
(Hint: What’s the one where you ignore the actual argument, quote a completely different one, and then tear that different argument apart.)
Crackpots who throw their races for no reason are just a gift to everything they claim they oppose, liberalism.
The Angle-Reid disaster is a perfect example of helping the liberals for no reason. Maybe this guy will still pull it out but he certainly caused problems.
“I agree. We simply don’t know what we’re going to get with Romney”
What we do know is that he cannot be as bad as Obama. Beyond that we know little. His record is not as encouraging as his rhetoric.
First, thanks for cutting off my comment in mid-sentence, and second, I was not making an argument in favor of abortion. I was merely hypothesizing about a possibility that since abortion is legal at this point, having a choice after being raped (no choice) actually may strengthen a woman’s resolve to do the morally right thing. Granted, that hypothesis doesn’t add much to the debate, never claimed it did.
Shhhh...You’ll be called an Obama voter if you tell the truth about Romney’s stance on abortion. Just say “more gruel, please” and shuffle along.
That he’s consistently rated conservative no matter where he’s been, and his pro-life record is stellar.
So, the issue is being the alternative to Obama or Romney.
It could be the CP or the LP, so far as “conservatism” is concerned. The LPs are pro-choice, so that rules them out for me automatically without looking any further into their principles.
Did you support TARP?
“Name the fallacy.”
Does abortion kill a baby?
Is an unborn baby a person?
Them's the facts, and Romney and his people presumably know it.
The ABOs doom succeeding generations. Both our parties are now big brother since ABOs have acquiesced. They have traded their blessing for a bowl of pottage.
How much better for the victims of rape to go ahead and have the child and put it up for adoption. I have a dear friend whose son was born because she was raped.
She is Catholic, her son is currently a practicing non-denominationalist, but he takes care of her — giving her rides, having her for dinner, etc.
BTW, pray for this son that he may come to the fullness of belief, amen.
IMHO, if the real issue is whether those who were raped should have to carry any infant to term, the above approach seems like plenty of protection against someone being forced to bear a child that was forced on them against their will.
It also provides an opportunity for those who believe that even in the case of rape the child's life is paramount to step up, put their money where their mouth is, and make a legally binding commitment to take care of the mother and infant if the woman is pregnant. They should also commit to being responsible for a suitable adoptive family or if the woman wants to keep the child herself, be willing to bear a significant share of the cost of the infant and the resulting child's education.
If people say they cannot abide abortion in any case aren't going to bear a large part consequences of a child coming into the world due to rape they can be satisfied with being kept in the dark right along with the woman who may or may not be pregnant. Otherwise they're just playing into the hands of the whole culture of death machine.
There may be something workable along the line of reasoning I'm using here and there may not, but playing the "pregnant due to rape" game is nothing but a gimmick of the culture of death crowd. Most of them think all sex is either rape or prostitution anyway. The culture of death crowd is always going to have some sort of exception to bandy about with the help of their media pals. There are ways to deal with tragic exceptions to the rule but continuing to slaughter millions to avoid dealing with exceptions as the arise isn't at all reasonable.
The real issue is to stop playing the games the democrat media crowd love to play. All the "discussion" about exceptions doesn't accomplish a thing other than to let another day pass which insures the deaths of another few thousand infants while all everyone is coaxed into being comfortable that their exception is handled in advance. Even when abortion was illegal I knew of several girls who had no problem obtaining one in the heart of the Bible Belt. They weren't from wealthy families, either, so the issue wasn't whether or not you could afford to have an abortion and there was never a time when "thousands" of women a year were dying from "back ally abortions" unless it was before the turn of the twentieth century.
If abortion on demand and the culture of death are going to be halted, those opposed to mass murder need to agree that all abortions should be outlawed but that they may be cases where an exception should be made, then go on to the next point rather than playing games that do nothing but hand the initiative to the enemy.
Since you agree that an unborn baby is a person, What does the amendment say about the rights of a person?
“The ABOs doom succeeding generations.”
Agreed. They are passing this fight to our children and grand-children. No courage to face the battle now.
Thank you, Salvation. There is great grace on your flock for their insistence on the truth about the sacredness of human life.
They fight the war with the wrong weapons.
2 Co 10:4 “4 for the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful to God for the bringing down of strongholds,”
The only real question, Jim, is whether or not an unborn child is a person. Is he or she?
I know you weren’t advocating abortion, but just your use of the word “empowerment”, in that context, seemed kind of crazy to me. That’s why I cut off the quote right there, to highlight what I saw as something detracting from your argument.
I guess you've never had your skull stabbed with scissors, crushed, and your brains sucked out and your body ripped apart and tossed in a pail. It's genocide and obie supports it. And the fact that mitt supports the ongoing genocide is disgusting. I've stated what mitt can do to earn my vote, but if Ryan goes wobbly in the knees/sells his soul, then the deal's off.
They don’t truly value life, do they?
“Is an unborn baby a person?”
Again, agreed. This is about faith. Sadly, the faithful appear to be...fewer than I’d thought.
14th Amendment, Section 1:... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
sorry, I just dont think I can handle having this baby
She’s not “handling” the baby. It will be adopted.
“Well, first, Id say that its a pretty callused statement to say that a woman who, when raped and who says I dont want to have a baby that happened as the result of rape well, fine, but you are a murderer. Really? A murderer?”
Who is going to say that? I’m advocating that it shouldn’t be legal, period. So, in that situation, nobody is going to call the woman a murderer, because there wouldn’t be a murder, unless she went to one of those “back-alley” clinics the Dems love to remind us about.
“I also dont know that you can state for certain what will happen to the girl in all cases, such as she will have a guilty conscience for the rest of her life.”
Fair enough, I should qualify that statement. If she is a human with a functioning conscience, then she will have a guilty conscience for the rest of her life, unless she obtains forgiveness and comfort from God. Sociopaths and psychopaths wouldn’t have to worry about that, so that argument doesn’t apply to them. As for the other people who might seem like their consciences don’t bother them concerning abortion, I simply don’t believe it. They may suppress their emotions so they can go about their daily lives, but there is a lasting impact, I am certain of it.
“You said letting the baby develop is a default inactive choice. But you are ignoring that what got her in that position was ALSO an inactive choice.”
I’m not ignoring it, but that wasn’t your decision. I was talking about how you said you didn’t want to be “forcing” a decision on her, when it was actually the default chain of events that would naturally proceed from doing nothing at all. Sure, she didn’t choose to become pregnant, but that doesn’t mean that she has no responsibility now that she is pregnant. I didn’t choose to be born, does that mean I have no responsibility to obey laws, pay taxes, etc? No, I am here, so I have responsibilities. It doesn’t matter whether or not I got a choice in the matter, because responsibilities do not require a choice in order to be incurred.
“Second, its really easy to argue from the standpoint that you seem to want to argue from, the position of black and white, all about the baby. But you dont seem to want to touch the issue of what about her and the practical details of her life and her rights.”
No, the easy stance is to give in to emotion, and tell the distraught girl what she wants to hear, that all her problems can go away if she just makes that baby disappear. That’s the easy choice. The hard choice is to say, no, ethics and principles do not change based on the situation, so we must make our decisions based on a universal set of principles, even when it forces us to make decisions that we do not like, or that do not make us feel good. That’s why I don’t pay any attention to the practical details of her life, etc, because they are immaterial, and only serve to cloud the issue with emotion. The principles of the matter remain the same regardless of the situation.
“Its easy to take the moral position that you are taking, of saying its a baby and that trumps all else, but I ask you, are you really ready to sit down and look in a rape victims face and say, Like it or not, you WILL have this baby, by law, not because you chose to engage in the reproductive act, but because our law is so rigid you have no other option?”
Yes, I am ready to sit down and do that. If that was all that was stopping us as a nation from banning the murder of these millions of children, then I would take that job, and the rest of you could just send all the sobbing rape victims my way to get the bad news. I won’t even ask for a government salary.
“Force her to have the baby as if shes someone whos opinion doesnt matter at all? Certainly not.”
Not that her opinion doesn’t matter at all, just that her opinion doesn’t give her the right to murder another human being.
I’m sorry, but this is a moral fight, not simply a legal or political fight. You don’t win a moral dispute by compromising your principles and ceding ground to the enemy. You win it by standing firm on the correct principles.
By that standard, the morning after pill is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Abortion in cases of rape and incest is wrong. Ceding that any one of those “options” should be on the table, just for political expediency, may win a political battle, but it will lose the moral war. You may be prepared to accept that outcome, but I am not.
Yay! We agree. No need to bicker!
Fine, enjoy the status quo.
In fact, this interpretation is so obvious, that when my younger son first read the Constitution (maybe age 8?), his first comment was that the 14th Amendment barred abortion.
At least I will be able to sleep at night knowing I didn’t sell my soul for a few votes.
And the tens of millions who have been murdered so that folks like you can sleep well thank you very much.