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
click here to read article
We do not live in a Judeo-Christian culture any longer.The framework of our culture is still Christian, the basis of our laws is rooted in a Christian culture. In the short run, a Romney view is far more acceptable to the general electorate than our view that all abortion always is wrong. If we can get to 98% fewer abortions and a chance to rebuild our culture, I am for that. To get to 100% we need Christian unity and schools run by priests and parents, not the state. Until that happy day, we have to work with the best we get offered, and a choice between Romney and Obama (and that IS the only choice today) is an easy one.
I posted earlier on this thread that I am not not arrogant enough to tell him to quit because I am far from MO and I know I am not knowledgeable enough in MO politics to know what the best course is , nor do I like the Republicans party.
But I have a rule about Republicans who blow up their own (identified ) causes and allies with pointless indefensible stuff like this.
Sharon Angle had made a comment about NV unemployed being soft when NV had the highest unemployment in the country and she needed those voters.
It was a great way of electing Reid.
“It is obvious to any person of pro-life persuasion — whether they're willing to admit it publicly or not — that one cannot just murder a human being no matter who the father is.
“In other words, a so-called pro-lifer who accepts rape and incest abortion is either a phony pro-lifer or a pro-lifer who has been trying to appease the culture despite the nagging at his conscience.”
Sorry, no, xzins. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of folks who are pro-life or tend pro-life believe that abortion should be legally permitted where women become pregnant as a result of rape.
Even if they believe that such abortions result in the killing of an unborn human being, they believe that the option to kill that little person must be maintained in law.
Most folks believe that it is cruel and heartless to force a woman to go through nine months of pregnancy with a baby conceived through rape. Many folks actually have ideas like, “The baby is of bad seed, better off dead.” Or, “If the woman is forced to bear the baby, that means the rapist wins.” I've actually had folks say this stuff to me.
You are absolutely wrong to think that folks who are generally pro-life might not also, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, hold that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape.
Me? I disagree. I don't see how visiting violence on an innocent third party somehow will console the victim of the awful violent and violative crime of rape. I've known women who were raped - and who did NOT procure the killing of their unborn babies - and it was REALLY, REALLY TOUGH to go through those pregnancies. Yet, they emerged on the other end far more whole, far more healed, and led far healthier, happier lives, far closer to God, than if they had paid for the execution of their unborn child.
In this regard, you're preachin’ to the choir.
Yet, I acknowledge that lots of folks really and truly believe that the option for abortion in these circumstances must be legally preserved.
In that these circumstances result in a couple of percent of abortions, I'm more than willing to have these folks on board as pro-lifers, to work to change the laws to generally prohibit abortions, except in these circumstances.
And then, when we've consolidated that victory, we can move forth and persuade folks in conscience that the next step is to protect in law ALL unborn babies.
But, I'll take the partial win represented by a 96% reduction in abortion.
“Again, another reason to assert that Romney is a liar.”
Did you read the article I linked, from Slate? I watched your silly video. A little reciprocity?
After reading it, you may still conclude that Gov. Romney tells lies. But you may think that the lies he tells are not the lies you think he tells.
My own speculation is that in his heart of hearts, Gov. Romney actually holds firmly to his LDS faith, which includes the belief that abortion should generally be prohibited, except in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, and severe fetal abnormality. From a “theological” perspective (my own view of LDS “theology” is sufficiently low that I don't really recognize it as proper theology - sorry if that sounds a little bigoted), it has to do with what LDS folks believe about the pre-existence of souls, etc. They are truly iffy about whether or not conception and ensoulment happen at the same time.
I also speculate that Gov. Romney doesn't really care very much about this issue. He believes what he believes, but it's just not very important to him. For him, the attraction of the presidency is to solve the problem of a dysfunctional economy, to figure out how to bring down the deficit, boost GDP growth, reform the tax code. He's a self-described problem solver. In his view, the current problems include over-regulation, over-taxation, mis-taxation, governmental over-spending, disastrous growth paths in entitlements, to name a few.
He's right. As far as he goes.
I just think there are deeper, cultural problems that give rise to the current economic difficulties. I doubt that Mr. Romney will do much to address them. I doubt he's even quite aware of them, or understands what to do about them.
That's all right. The cultural problems mostly don't admit of governmental solutions. The best thing government could do to help with these problems is to withdraw from social space currently occupied by government. The best thing government could do, in many cases, would be to shrink, to exit certain social spaces.
I don't think Mr. Romney understands this, but I do think that his economic analysis will cause him to do the right thin unwittingly at least some of the time.
On the other hand, I'm absolutely sure that the Kenyan anti-Christ will do no such thing, but rather, will seek to have government encroach further on civil society, will seek to make us all increasingly clients, nay, slaves, of the welfare state, will seek to impose forcibly radical beliefs and cultural norms on us.
So, with Mr. Romney, we get some short-term and mid-term economic fixes, little by way of addressing the underlying problems affecting the United States. With the Kenyan anti-Christ, we get slavery, exponentially-increased destruction of our culture, as well as destruction of our economy.
I'll take Mr. Romney.
You are assuming an awful lot there, with nothing to back it up. You assume that if we all roll over and say “ok we’ll let you have abortions in cases of rape and incest”, then 99% of the abortions would stop. I think that’s a laughable fantasy. There wouldn’t be any reduction at all. These women are already prepared to murder their own child to satisfy their selfish interests, so of course they would be willing to lie and say they were raped to get an abortion.
Besides which, if we are such an unreasonable group, then I’m sure you an find more common ground with the pro-abortionists, and craft a large consensus to pass whatever legislation you want. Surely, little old me cannot be stopping you. So, go ahead, do what you think will stop 99% of abortions, and I won’t stop you. I’m simply not going to join you in supporting something I know to be wrong and ineffective.
Sadly, pro-lifers who don't support a rape exception almost never stop for even a moment to consider the fact that the victimized woman is also a person, and may also have important rights that should be weighed in the equation.
After all, the right to life does not trump all other rights in law. If I need a kidney transplant to live, but there is no donor organ available, I will die...because I do not have the right to force you to give me a kidney against your will. My right to life does not trump your right to your bodily integrity, and that's a very good thing. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country where the reverse was true.
>> her opinion doesnt give her the right to murder another human being.
Are you against the death penalty under all absolutely all circumstances?
Are you against fighting in just wars?
Are you against killing an armed intruder that breaks into your house and threatens your family with death?
No, no, and no. What do any of those things have to do with murder?
I don't give a rat's ass what the majority thinks about murdering babies. It's what God says that matters. This isn't some paltry debate about tax rates. Yes, rape is a horrible crime, but what did the kid that resulted from it do to deserve being murdered?
"Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."
"The Lord hates hands that shed innocent blood."
Romney is not perfect, pro life. However, he will save millions of babies vs Obama and the Dems.
Your analogy is flawed. Nobody is depriving the kidney patient of their life, or right to it, they will simply die in the natural course of events, barring some action that can’t be legally compelled of others.
Putting that aside, I see your point, but it is simply not sufficient to say there are other rights to take into account, and then wash your hands of the matter. There are means for determining which rights take precedence, and if we apply those tests, then the child’s right to life does trump the rights of the parent that could be construed to conflict with it in nearly every circumstance. The only way you can make a logical case to ignore that is if you simply say that the child is not a person, and therefore has no rights.
How about we make sure the cases were real rape or incest by making sure the perp was arrested and prosecuted??
I know the left would never go for that
Please define murder.
I’m sorry, did you confuse me with someone who has patience for childish semantics games? You know darn well what murder is, and if you don’t, there are plenty of dictionaries available on the interwebs.
The principle here is that individuals in our society do not have an obligation to give of their bodily resources to help others survive, especially when they bear no responsibility whatsoever for the predicament of the person in trouble. This principle has been pretty consistently applied and respected in American law and tradition. It's the reason there is no forced organ or blood donation and women aren't forced to carry unused lab embryos to term.
In the case of a rape pregnancy, it seems to me that the victimized woman seeking an abortion has a very strong case. She had nothing at all to do with the creation of the embryo she now carries, so shouldn't this principle apply to her? Isn't she justified in seeking to end the violation of her rights? The only way for her to cease the use of her body by the embryo is to have an abortion. The innocence of the baby is not relevant in this scenario, just as the innocence of unused embryos is not relevant to their situation.
>> Im sorry, did you confuse me with someone who has patience for childish semantics games?
Well, yes, I guess I did figure you had both the patience and intellectual honesty for a detailed discussion; you’re playing god, therefore I figured you would be more god-like in your character.
Guess I was wrong. Sorry about that.
“She had nothing at all to do with the creation of the embryo she now carries, so shouldn’t this principle apply to her? Isn’t she justified in seeking to end the violation of her rights? The only way for her to cease the use of her body by the embryo is to have an abortion.”
Yes, and that is the crux of the matter, that the only way she can hope to assert that right is to kill the baby. Her free exercise of her rights is in direct opposition to the child’s free exercise of his rights. That’s why it is not sufficient to simply assert that she has a right. Yes, she has a right, insomuch as that right doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights.
Since they are in conflict, it’s not a clear cut case, and a compromise must be made, to accomodate the rights of both parties, or a subordination must be made if there is no compromise possible. In this case, there is no compromise possible, since the child cannot live unless the mother is restricted from exercising unfettered rights over her own body. One or the other party’s rights must be judged to take precedence over the other.
That’s where the argument for the mother’s rights breaks down. In almost every circumstance, the harm caused to the mother by giving precedence to the rights of the child is vastly inferior to the harm caused to the child by giving precedence to the mother. Only in the circumstance where the mother’s own life is being threatened by having her rights subordinated can one make a reasonable argument that giving her precedence is the correct judgement.
Not playing God, just calling it as I see it. If you want to argue that abortion is not murder, then just come out and say that, instead of playing games, trying to bait me into some obvious trap you think you have laid.
>> If you want to argue that abortion is not murder, then just come out and say that
I believe that *almost all* instances of killing another human being are murder. However, I believe that there are exceptions to that generality — as, apparently, do you. I further believe (although you may not) that those exceptions cross all categories of killing, including abortion.
>> Not playing God, just calling it as I see it.
Fair enough. Then how *do* you see it? In your human condition, of course, since you’re “not playing god”.
In other words, as I asked before, I’m interested in *your* definition of murder. Of course I can look it up on the interwebz — but I’d like to know *your* definition.
Depriving another person of their life with intent, absent just cause or due process.
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.