• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Posted on 06/08/2007 7:45:57 AM PDT by Reaganesque
A few days ago I wrote about how Mitt Romney would not come out and say abortion is murder. Read my previous post here. Since then, The Brody File has received an email that’s circulating among the grassroots in defense of Romney on this issue. It’s from Nathan Burd, Director of Public Policy for the pro-life group Heartbeat International. It's always good to be defended by a pro-life group. (full disclosure though...Burd is also Director of “Americans for Mitt.”) Below are excerpts:
“There are very good reasons for a pro-lifer not to call abortion "murder" in certain settings. If you are speaking to a large room full of strangers, there is a very high likelihood that someone in that room has suffered, or is still suffering, from an abortion decision. Calling abortion "murder" can open up old wounds or pour salt in current wounds for those women.”
“Because post-abortion trauma is so common, we really have to be careful about throwing out the terms "murder", "homicide", etc. Judgmental, emotional pro-lifers who don't think through the entire issue seem to miss the fact that the words they use can be a dagger in the heart of a woman who regrets her decision to abort.”
“The answer Romney gave would not hurt them further precisely because he avoided the words that cause them pain…A real pro-life leader has to be firm on the issue but also needs to be compassionate in the language they use. Romney is doing that.”
I can tell you that the Romney campaign agrees with this way of thinking. If that’s the case, it would make sense for Romney to articulate that point rather than say “it means different things to different people.” He should speak in depth about this. It would accomplish two things: it would show he’s serious about engaging in discussion about topics within the pro-life movement. Plus it shows a sensitive side to him which will help him with women on this issue. Comments?
Does Romney have some sort of a philosophical reason to refuse to call it murder, or is it just politics??
In 1994, Romney Campaign Accused Ted Kennedy Of Flip-Flopping On Abortion, Saying "Mitt Has Always Been Consistent In His Pro-Choice Position." "Citing a 1971 letter written by Kennedy, [Romney campaign consultant Charles] Manning responded, `I think the reason they don't trust Ted Kennedy is that he flip-flopped on abortion. He was pro-life before Roe v. Wade and now he's changed. Mitt has always been consistent in his pro-choice position and that's why the group respects him.'" (Bruce Mohl, "Mass. Antiabortion Group Backs Romney," The Boston Globe, 9/8/94)
-------------
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/05/25/romney_hints_of_a_shift_on_abortion/
When Romney was wooing Massachusetts voters in 2002, he said he supported Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, and promised not to change the state's abortion policies. He espoused the same position during his 1994 US Senate campaign against Kennedy.
''I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country," Romney said in an October 1994 debate against Kennedy. ''I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."
In recent months, however, Romney has played up his personal opposition to abortion in out-of-state speeches; removed a reference to Roe before signing an annual proclamation celebrating access to birth control; tried to promote the teaching of abstinence to students; and declined to publicly back a measure expanding access to emergency contraception, even though he said he supported that goal during the 2002 campaign. He has said he will examine the proposal if it reaches his desk.
He’s a post-modern: See (to have it both ways):
Will Mitt become a Catholic to get their vote?
Not all killing is murder, such as killing someone in self defense. Likewise, a woman who aborts because the pregnancy puts her life at serious risk is exercising a right of self defense and is not murdering.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints allows for abortion in cases of rape and incest too.
From a devotional address given at Brigham Young University by Dallin H. Oaks on 9 February 1999:
http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1cd0196b5a1eb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
A prominent basis for the secular or philosophical arguments for abortion on demand is the argument that a woman should have control over her own body. Not long ago I received a letter from a thoughtful Latter-day Saint outside the United States who analyzed that argument in secular terms. Since his analysis reaches the same conclusion I have urged on religious grounds, I quote it here for the benefit of those most subject to persuasion on this basis:
“Every woman has, within the limits of nature, the right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Every woman has, at the same time, the responsibility for the way she uses her body. If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to but also the responsibility for that fetus. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she is not justified in ending it with the claim that it interferes with her right to choose. She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.
“What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of or the threat to the woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero.
“The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right. She also has the right to refuse an abortion. This would give her the right to the fetus and also the responsibility for it. She could later relinquish this right and this responsibility through the process of placing the baby for adoption after it is born. Whichever way is a responsible choice.”
The man who wrote those words also applied the same reasoning to the other exceptions allowed by our doctrine—life of the mother and a baby that will not survive birth.
I conclude this discussion of choice with two more short points.
If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God’s servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law due to this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?
Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so that our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.
Murder means “unlawful killing”.
By the laws in this country, most abortions are legal, and therefore not technically murder.
You could make a good case that abortion is against God’s laws though, and call it murder that way.
Instead of calling it murder, you might call it a homicide, or better yet an atrocity.
Some people think that because a doctor in a white coat is doing it, and because the law says it is ok, that they don’t need to think about the morality of what is going on any further. Bad laws can accomodate evil acts, and people in white coats with degrees can do evil acts.
All I have to say is that those who attack Romney for “changing his mind” really need to avoid using that defense to defend their candidate.
Personally I’m not a Romney fan but I don’t like to see him attacked by people who think it’s ok that their candidate changed his mind on issues.
Thanks for your post detailing the position of the LDS on abortion. You say that “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints allows for abortion in cases of rape and incest too,” and provide details from the decision.
I am very disappointed to hear that the LDS puts the woman’s right to control her body over the life of her unborn child. That is plain wrong, IMHO.
The Catholic Church declares that abortion is only licit in cases where it is genuinely necessary to save the life of the mother, in which case it is considered to be an unfortunate side effect of the life saving procedures and not a deliberate abortion. Such instances are quite rare, if bogus “health of the mother” claims are put aside.
People who are not Catholics are not obliged to follow Catholic teachings, unless they are rational and scientifically valid. It seems to me that such is the case with rape and incest. Neither is a pleasant thing to contemplate, but neither will be fixed or undone by killing the baby.
Abortion is NOT licit in the case of rape or incest, because it is unjust to kill an innocent child for a crime he did not commit. Rape is highly traumatic for the victim, but there is no reason to think that killing the baby will undo the trauma. Understandably, the mother may wish to have the baby adopted after the birth, but killing it is not a solution.
Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.
In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.
Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.
When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services (see "Adoption").
Should Americans vote for the presidential candidate who will stop the illegal alien invasion; defeat Islam and restore Constitutional government, or for the one who is dedicated to social issues that are none of government’s business?
Anyone?
Thanks. I knew the LDS was pro-life, but I admit I am disappointed that they allow exceptions for incest and rape.
Your post clarifies that this is not automatic in all cases of incest or rape, but involves consultation with church leaders and prayer.
It’s not for a non-member of the LDS to say what their views should be, but I still find this disappointing. It still seems to me to allow for the taking of innocent lives in some cases.
I guess you missed this from the article:
“There are very good reasons for a pro-lifer not to call abortion "murder" in certain settings. If you are speaking to a large room full of strangers, there is a very high likelihood that someone in that room has suffered, or is still suffering, from an abortion decision. Calling abortion "murder" can open up old wounds or pour salt in current wounds for those women.”
“Because post-abortion trauma is so common, we really have to be careful about throwing out the terms "murder", "homicide", etc. Judgmental, emotional pro-lifers who don't think through the entire issue seem to miss the fact that the words they use can be a dagger in the heart of a woman who regrets her decision to abort.”
“The answer Romney gave would not hurt them further precisely because he avoided the words that cause them pain…A real pro-life leader has to be firm on the issue but also needs to be compassionate in the language they use. Romney is doing that.”
_______________________________
Norma McCorvey of Roe v Wade, who is now pro-life, argues against criminalizing the woman, as does Fred Thompson (and as do many other conservatives).
COLMES: If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion -- and state-by- state, then they make different decisions about abortion. And let's say it becomes illegal. What should be the punishment, Norma? What should women -- should they go to jail if they have abortions? Should they...
MCCORVEY: No, absolutely not. No, no, no. We want the women to know that we're here and that we're wanting to help them.
COLMES: But they would be breaking the law?
MCCORVEY: Well, the only criminalization, I think, that should be brought forth is from the abortionists.
www.foxnews.com
______________________________
FRED THOMPSON: "Should the government come in and criminalize, let's say, a young girl and her parents and her doctors as aiders and abettors? . . . I think not," Thompson said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/05/AR2007050500284_pf.html
We should stop using the word "murder" around prisons too; wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of the murderers.
Anyone?
Well that's a loaded question. Should we abolish *all* existing murder laws too? After all, if I want to kill a few people on the street, that's just a social issue that's none of the government's business.
I will take candidate #1, please. Thank you!
It would be easier to accept his word at face value if the change was neither so recent nor as part of so many changes in positions on a variety of subjects.
Maybe he's for real... I don't know. Personally, I don't think I can trust him, and that's the bottom line.
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.