Posted on 06/04/2007 4:21:36 PM PDT by wagglebee
Laconia, NH (LifeNews.com) -- At a campaign event in New Hampshire last week, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would not go so far as to label abortion "murder." The former Massachusetts governor's reluctance to use a term frequently employed by pro-life advocates drew criticism from Sam Brownback's campaign.
Romney appeared in the Granite State on a whistle tour campaign that finished up with an hour-long town meeting where attendees could ask the candidate any question they wanted.
A man who described himself as a "social conservative" wanted Romney to answer the question of whether he thought abortion was "murder."
Romney declined to characterize abortion that way and said that the term "means different things to different people."
He added that the bottom line for him is that at conception the unborn child is "alive and it is human" and he called abortion the taking of a human life. Romney also said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and states should be able to make their own decisions on abortion.
Martin Gillespie, political director of Sam Brownback's campaign seized on those comments and told LifeNews.com that he thought Romney was again changing his position on abortion.
"Mitt Romney's flip-flops on abortion throughout the years make more sense now," he said. "Every different Romney flip-flop on abortion has coincided perfectly with the most politically expedient position of the campaign he was in."
"Romney says life begins at conception, but doesn't think abortion is murder and Romney says he's pro-life but he thinks states should be able to choose to allow abortion," Gillespie added. "Every time he tries to clarify, as he tried to do last week, it becomes more and more confusing."
Responding to the Brownback campaign’s comments, Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Romney, talked with LifeNews.com.
“Governor Romney is firmly pro-life and is he will continue to encourage, promote and defend pro-life policies," he said. "Advocacy of these policies and bringing others towards a pro-life position is an important part of the governor’s efforts.”
Gillespie indicated that Romney has repeatedly said he opposes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would affirm legal protection for unborn children
"Unlike Romney, Sam Brownback is a strong supporter of the Human Life Amendment and is genuinely pro-life," Gillespie maintained.
I don’t care what they call it. I just want to make sure that they don’t support it.
If Brownback wasn’t a complete open borders pro-legalization wimp, he’d be a viable candidate.
“I’m not certain we win ultimately by tossing around those terms in public. I think we need to win people to an affirmative position, a regard for human life from conception to death.”
I’m certain that we won’t win with those kinds of terms in general elections. I’d guess that “Abortion is murder” would poll somewhere in the 30s in agreement. Since a significant portion of woman above age 20 have had abortions (remember its a holocaust of 40 million so far, that’s 40 million *would be mothers who aborted their own children*), hillary could be out there telling women “I’m one of you, my opponent thinks a quarter of you are murderers. Who do you trust?”
On the other hand, we could the life argument wins hands down with a clear logical science-based argument that every abortion is the taking of a human life. Life is in the womb and it is destroyed. Far better to win on facts and let others come to a moral conclusion themselves than to be cast as ‘too judgmental’ by our anti-judgemental culture.
I’m prolife and I wouldn’t use the murder term, since it implies intentionality that may not be there. As the first martyr St Stephen said, “Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do.”
Situation is all-too common, esp. the complicity of others in getting women to abort their babies.
I agree with you and Saundra on using the term murder in public political debate. I won’t fault a candidate for saying it but something tells me that isn’t how we’ll increase respect for life issues. This business involves a lot more than hollering ‘murder’ and expecting the world to change instantly. We should never let up in our determination but we have to be patient and persuasive.
I often wonder how many of the hard core prolifer here on FR have ever had any personal experience with the issue. It is easy to stand on the sidelines and throw mud and expect perfection, but life isn’t always that black and white.
I am ardently prolife because of just such a real life experience. Does a mistake I made 36 years ago make me a murder, we’ll let God be the ultimate judge of that. What you do as a scared 19 y/o and how you see life as mature adult can be very different. I would suggest that all of these holier than thous here should spend some time reading some of the heart wrenching stories of remorse written by men and women posted on the “Silent No More” website.
If you are talking about the leaches at PPH that pry on young women and men to make money, the doctors that live in huge estates paid for in the blood of dead babies or women who are proudly working on their 4th or 5th abortion that my friend is a very different story.
I would love to think that we could wave a magic wand and never have another abortion committed in this country again, but realistic I want to work sensibly in a way that makes us as successful as possible in stopping this horrible legacy. Having a Mitt Romney in the WH supported by a agreeable Congress will get a lot more done than letting one issue voters put Hillary and her butchers in control.
I think Gov. Romney's response was spot on ... a solid, articulate, pro-life answer.
For a candidate to clearly say that abortion, from the moment of conception, is the taking of a human life ... and get slammed for lack of pro-life purity ... makes no sense to me.
I'm interested in stopping abortions via the political process, not having a contest to see who can call it the worst names.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Wow, that’s quite a powerful perspective and it sounds like your experience had a profound impact on you. Yes, this is a battle that must be fought at a legislative and judicial level—but much less so than at a personal morality level, IMO. I’m pro-life and have always been so, but I’ve had a really hard time judging women who have had abortions because I know there are so many factors that play into a decision of that magnitude. It’s something I’ve struggled with quite frankly not because I don’t believe in the sanctity of life, but that I realize that there are a lot of women who don’t hold my same beliefs and would end up seeking illegal abortions that could cost them their lives if a safe alternative was not available to them.
Everyone has to come to terms with the level of government intrusion in such decisions. That was definitely Romney’s main dilemma as to how he viewed abortion after witnessing the death of his relative who had obtained an abortion illegally. The issue had touched him personally and influenced his point of view. His pro-choice position was not due to some sick desire to allow millions of babies die because he believed they weren’t living human beings. He obviously knew they were because of his own personally held beliefs about abortion, but he also realized that government can’t dictate morality—it still can’t and never will be able to. I think the cloning and embryonic farming issue that was dumped into his lap as governor of MA finally made him realize that the issue had far greater consequence than just potentially endangering the lives of women and that ultimately caused him to change his point of view.
People can say that the change was politically expedient (having occurred only 2 years ago), but they should also consider that Romney didn’t seek out the cloning and embryonic stem-cell research debate—it literally found him when the researchers at Harvard University started to pursue the issue with reckless abandon. As a result of being forced to deal with the problem head on, he emerged from it a changed man. Is the change sincere? That will be up to the voters to decide, but I think it’s disingenous for people to just discount Romney’s experience as “just another flip-flop” because he is running for president without considering both his personal history with the issue and how his experiences as a governor greatly affected his conversion.
The only real way that we win the battle for life is to change hearts and minds. It’s slowly happening, but we are making progress nonetheless. That’s why I think using the rhetoric that abortion is “murder” because that somehow makes a candidate “more conservative” than another is counterproductive to the goal of ending abortion once and for all. The Supreme Court can overturn Roe vs. Wade, but that won’t stop abortions from taking place because whether abortion is considered “murder” can greatly fluctuate from person-to-person. We need government to put the decision back in the hands of the states (which is Romney’s goal) and then the people need to do the rest in changing the mindset of society. The latter goal has absolutely zero to do with who we elect as president.
I do sincerely apologized for misreading your post sorry!
Nice try but the question when the spirit enters the body!
Some believe at conception, or at a certain trimester and other at birth when they tap the bottom and it starts to breathe.
So it may not be murder but abortion is taking a life!
but than your whole MO Colofornian, has always been to be 100 per cent contrary when ever possible towards the LDS
That’s right, Feed has it sown up because he has the backing of the CFR. Hillary has it sown up and I don’t think that they want an avowed socialist appearing to be running things
American will not turn against abortion until she is taught. She will not be taught until the people listen. Calling them "murderers" will not enhance the possibility that they will listen.
Uh, I've got news for you...babies already breathe thru the oxygen in the fluid of the amniotic sac.
You know, a lot of folks don't believe that animals have any spirits. So I could come over & shoot your pets if I don't believe they have a spirit in their body?
Your lame philosophy doesn't even allocate protection to pets; yet you would probably spend more time trying to philosophically defend them than the average baby in the womb.
So go ahead & tell God that "spiritless" babies in the womb are worthless to Him. Go ahead. Tell Him. Tell Him that you don't know when they suddenly come of worth, but whatever craftsmanship He has shown thus far in putting together a baby's body that may be spirit-embodied, or may not be, has been a waste 'cause it's headed for the abortion industry chambers.
What part of taking a life don’t you understand Colofornian all your rant is for NOT!
.
If Romney didn’t want to use the term murder, he could have come back with something like this: “Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.”
Instead, he came back with: abortion “means different things to different people.”
Sorry, that just doesn’t cut it. It sounds as if it came straight out of the Casey decision, with its moral relativism. According to Casey, which reaffirmed Roe, everyone has a constitutional right to make up his own version of reality and basically do whatever they like. Nonsense.
Frankly Romney’s statement is equal nonsense.
As for those who have unfortunately had an abortion, or who have a daughter or a friend who has had an abortion, there is only one way to get over the feelings of guilt, sorrow, and regret: repentance and forgiveness. For peace of mind, it is necessary to confront what you have done and repent it, not to pretend that you didn’t do it or that it means something different to you and therefore doesn’t count. That is the road to relativism, nihilism, and to continuing pangs of guilt.
Traditionally the soul not only is immortal, surviving when the body dies and, in Christian belief, reunited with the body at the resurrection, but it is also, in Aristotle’s influential terminology, “the form of the body.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church still uses that formulation. “The soul is the form of the body.” A human being is both body and soul, not just one or the other. As long as there is life in the body, there is soul.
The Hebrew word ruach means wind, breath, or spirit. In Greek the word pneuma means the same things: wind, breath, and spirit. Throughout the Bible, these words are interchangeable, so that God breaths life into Adam, and the breath is said to go out of a man at death. The Holy Spirit is portrayed as fire and wind.
Early theologians believed that God instilled the soul or spirit into an unborn child at “quickening” (which means coming alive, as in the old expression “the quick and the dead”), the moment when it was first felt to move. This we now know to be false science. The unborn child is alive from the beginning. At no point is it ever dead matter or cells. Therefore, it is never without life or spirit or soul, unless it dies.
so it isn’t murder, to be politically correct in definition?!... it IS KILLING! so you are disconnecting it as murder because of the “unlawful” part? (just asking for clarification) but should abortions be declared unlawful, then the definition of murder would fit?
Yes. Murder is "unlawful" killing. Period.
It's not "politically" correct. It's just correct.
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.